1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

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

B. Around 13:13 on November 13, 2018, the Defendant’s vehicle changed the course from the three lanes to the two lanes in front of the National Museum of Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul National Museum. However, the taxi numberless in the following direction of the Defendant’s vehicle attempted to change the two lanes from the first lane to the second lane, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle that was behind the taxi was changing from the first lane to the second lane, and then returned to the first lane, the Plaintiff’s vehicle that was behind the taxi was changing from the second lane to the second lane, was shocking the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle.

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

On November 23, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 24,625,100 to the insured of the Plaintiff’s vehicle as insurance proceeds.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including each number), video, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the driver of the defendant vehicle violated the method of change of course by changing the lane without considering the speed, safety distance, etc. of other vehicles at the time of the accident in this case, thereby obstructing the normal passage of other vehicles. Thus, the driver's negligence of the defendant vehicle is more than 20%.

As to this, the defendant did not observe the safety distance with the front vehicle at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at issue, but did not observe the safety distance with the front vehicle, and the accident at a very rapid and rapid speed by neglecting the front vehicle at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at issue. Thus, the defendant asserts that the accident at issue occurred by the whole negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle

3. When a driver of any motor vehicle follows another motor vehicle traveling in the same direction, the motor vehicle running ahead of it shall be the latter.