1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s KRW 1,243,00 for the Plaintiff and its related expenses from March 7, 2017 to April 3, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with B (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. At around 11:10 on November 10, 2016, Defendant vehicles change the lane from three lanes to two lanes on the other five lanes in the south of the Cyangdong, Gangseo-gu, Seoul, Gangseo-gu, Seoul.

The front left part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was stopped in two lanes due to the signal signal, was shocked in front of the left part of the Defendant’s vehicle.

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

The Plaintiff and the Defendant filed an application for deliberation on the instant accident with the indemnity payment dispute deliberation committee (hereinafter “the deliberation committee”), and on February 13, 2017, the deliberation committee decided that the rate of negligence between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s vehicle was 50:50 on the ground that the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle appears to have occurred during the change of vehicle lanes.

On March 6, 2017, the Plaintiff paid 1,243,000 won out of 50% of the repair cost of Defendant vehicle as insurance money according to the decision of the Deliberation Committee on the Settlement of Claims for Reimbursement.

[Ground] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 5, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case is an exclusive negligence on the defendant vehicle due to the accident that occurred due to the shocking of the part of the plaintiff vehicle in front of the right side of the plaintiff vehicle while moving in the future of the plaintiff vehicle while changing the vehicle from three lanes to two lanes.

In this regard, the defendant is an accident that causes the plaintiff's vehicle to change the two lanes from the first lane to the second lane, and the defendant's fault at least 90% is recognized to the plaintiff vehicle.