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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with A Lastya car (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a company that owns and operates a route bus B (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On January 22, 2016, around 18:30 on January 22, 2016, both the Plaintiff’s and the Defendant’s vehicle entered to the unification of the three-lanes of the Plaintiff’s left side and the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle, while entering the unification of the four-lanes of the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

C. At the time of the accident, at the same time, the Plaintiff’s vehicle began in the second lane, and the Defendant’s vehicle began in the second lane, and on the vehicular road located within the said Seodaemun-distance Intersection, a three-lane along the unification of the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the vehicular road, and on the Defendant’s vehicle’s lane, a two-lane along the unification.

The defendant vehicle entered the two-lanes of the course of unification into the two-lanes of the bus exclusive lanes, and the plaintiff vehicle is located in the designated lane, and the plaintiff vehicle used the left direction mark to change the two-lane to the two-lane in unification, followed the boundary between the three-lanes and the two-lanes, and the above accident occurred.

E. On February 29, 2016, upon the request of the insured, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,324,520 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry in Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence 3, 5, Eul evidence 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, Eul evidence 2-1 through 8, the result of the video verification of CCTV CDs in the party-by-case, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that since the negligence of the defendant's vehicle is 80%, the defendant is obligated to pay 1,059,616 won, which is 80% of the above repair cost paid as insurance money, as indemnity to the plaintiff.

(However, the court of first instance did not appeal against the defendant when it recognized the fault of the defendant vehicle as 60% and ordered the defendant to pay damages for delay).