1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

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

B. At around 03:50 on November 12, 2016, the Defendant’s vehicle was proceeding in the direction opposite to the two lanes in the direction of the Doro basin, among the five-lane roads in front of the Cheongdong-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Seoul. However, while the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving the three-lane in front of the Defendant’s vehicle, the vehicle changed the two-lane to the two-lane, while driving the three-lane in front of the Defendant’s vehicle, the front part of the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle left behind the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle

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

On December 8, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 959,000 insurance money at the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. At the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff’s vehicle attempted to change the lane in front of the Defendant vehicle. Since the Defendant vehicle was aware of the change of the lane of the Plaintiff vehicle and the instant accident occurred, the fault ratio of the Defendant vehicle in relation to the instant accident is 30%.

B. The driver of any motor vehicle shall not change the course when it is likely to impede the normal traffic of other motor vehicles running in the direction to which he/she intends to change his/her route (Article 19(3) of the Road Traffic Act). Examining the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence mentioned above, the aforementioned provisions and the purport of the entire arguments, namely, video before and after the accident in this case, and the shock level of the plaintiff and the defendant's vehicle, the driver of any motor vehicle tried to change the lane to the lane where the defendant's motor vehicle driven without securing the safe distance with the defendant's vehicle.