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. At around 14:30 on April 22, 2018, the Defendant’s vehicle driven along the four lanes in front of the Friju station located in E at Sinung-si, and the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which changed the course from the two lanes to the four lanes, was shocked on the front side of the Defendant vehicle.

Due to this shock, the Defendant’s vehicle was shocked with the centralized separation zone of the road.

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

On April 30, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,570,000 as insurance money to the Central Separation of Road that was destroyed by the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, Eul evidence No. 3, Eul evidence No. 5-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle who driven the vehicle in excess of the duty of front-time care and the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle, and that the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle is at least 30%.

The Defendant asserted that the instant accident occurred due to the total negligence of the Plaintiff’s driver who violated the method of changing course.

3. 판단 모든 차의 운전자는 차의 진로를 변경하려는 경우에 그 변경하려는 방향으로 오고 있는 다른 차의 정상적인 통행에 장애를 줄 우려가 있을 때에는 진로를 변경하여서는 아니 된다(도로교통법 제19조 제3항). 앞서 본 인정사실과 갑 제8호증, 을 제3호증, 을 제5호증의 2, 6의 각 기재 및 영상에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 이 사건 사고 장소는 ‘ㅓ’자형 교차로이고 당시 교차로에 직진 신호가 들어온 상황에서 원고 차량은 진진...