1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s KRW 731,000 and as to this, November 4, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the frighting vehicle (C; hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), and the Defendant entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to K5 taxi vehicles (D; hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. Around 02:00 on September 19, 2017, the Defendant’s vehicle traveling along the Hannam-dong in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant road”) to the south: (a) changed the lane from three lanes to four lanes; (b) immediately changed the lane to five lanes; and (c) in the process of entering the five lane, the Defendant’s vehicle shocked the left part of the left part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle as the front part of the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle.

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

On November 3, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 713,000,00 in total, incurred in relation to the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident, to E-the-job dispute resolution and F-industry company.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries or videos of Gap's evidence 1 to 7, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff's argument was merely driving along the five lanes of the road of this case, and the defendant's vehicle was changing the four lanes into five lanes and caused the accident of this case. The accident of this case occurred solely by the unilateral negligence of the defendant's vehicle. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the money stated in the claim to the plaintiff. 2) The accident of this case occurred while the plaintiff's vehicle was driving along the six lanes of the road of this case and changing the five lanes to five lanes, so the accident of this case occurred only by the unilateral negligence of the plaintiff's vehicle.

B. The circumstances acknowledged in light of the aforementioned evidence, i.e., the Defendant’s failure to complete the entry into the five-lanes in the course of the Defendant’s vehicle seeking to enter the four-lanes to five-lanes of the instant road.