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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a mutual aid agreement with the Plaintiff’s vehicle A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement with the Defendant’s vehicle B (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On November 11, 2014, the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle driven the Defendant’s vehicle on the front side of the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle, driving the two-lanes in front of the ridged Village, an underground street, in the direction of a water source in the same direction, and attempted to change the two-lanes into the three-lanes. When the driver tried to change the two-lanes, the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was driven at the three-lanes in the same direction of the Roman, was shocked into the

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On February 13, 2015, the Plaintiff paid 6,292,500 won for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (at least 100 won) as insurance money.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, 6 through 20 (hereinafter referred to as "numbers") and Eul evidence or video, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the accident of this case occurred from the two lanes to the three lanes, and the accident of this case occurred from the previous negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle who violated the obligation of Jeonju, and thus, the defendant is obligated to claim the total amount of the insurance money paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the accident of this case occurred in the course of attempting to change the vehicle from the three lanes to the two lanes, and that the negligence of the plaintiff vehicle reaches 40%.

B. In light of the above facts and the progress of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and shocking parts, it cannot be seen that the Plaintiff’s vehicle attempted to change the lane from the three lanes to the two lanes, as alleged by the Defendant, in light of the following circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively considering the facts acknowledged earlier, and the Defendant’s vehicle driving in the two lanes to the Plaintiff’s driver.