1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid additionally shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On September 17, 2016, around 15:34, 2016, there was an accident in which the front part of the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle, which changed the lane from the same direction as the upper part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving along the first lane to the first lane from the same direction as the lower part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving along the fourth lane in order to make a U-turn from the Sacheon-dong Sacheon-si Sacheon-si Sacheon-si. (hereinafter

C. On September 30, 2016, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 2,449,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence No. 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the Plaintiff’s total negligence on the part of the Defendant’s driver, since the Plaintiff’s vehicle was changed from the two lanes in which the Defendant’s vehicle was straighted to the one lane in which the U-turn and the left turn turn turn turn turn, while changing the vehicle from the two lanes in which the Defendant’s vehicle was straighted.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay the above insurance money to the plaintiff.

B. In full view of the following circumstances that are recognized prior to the determination, the Plaintiff’s vehicle passed through the safety zone from the outer road to the first lane of the point where the instant accident occurred, but the instant accident occurred after the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the safety zone and went through a considerable distance. The main cause of the accident was the change of the vehicle of the Defendant vehicle, but the Plaintiff’s vehicle appears to have failed to perform its concession obligation in light of the shock of the vehicle and the form of damage. In full view of the foregoing, the instant accident is the Plaintiff’s driver and the Defendant.