1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to B Mazas 911 Car (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), and the Defendant is a person who drives a motor vehicle without registration at the time of the following accident (hereinafter “Defendant Oba”).

B. On August 16, 2014, at around 22:35, the Defendant: (a) driven the Defendant Orab, driving the Defendant Orab, proceeding two-lanes in front of the D Hospital in Changwon-si C from the surface of the Empib apartment apartment site located in Changwon-si, Changwon-si, to the Empite Matetesan. In the form of a one-lane, the Plaintiff’s attempt to change the lane led to an accident (hereinafter “instant accident”). The part, which led to one-lane in front of the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle running in front of the left side of the Defendant Orab (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. By October 28, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 17,330,000, such as the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle, as insurance money.

[Ground for recognition] Each entry or video of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts and the evidence revealed as follows: (a) at the time of the accident, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle normally according to the first lane; and (b) at the time of the accident, the Defendant, who was driving in the second lane following the accident, seems to have attempted to make a rapid change of the vehicle by the method of driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle from the second to the first lane; and (c) as a driver of the vehicle driving the first lane on the third lane, the driver of the vehicle driving in the next lane, barring special circumstances, is ordinarily trusted that the vehicle driving in the second lane would normally be driving while maintaining the said vehicle’s normal speed. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s duty of care should be exercised in such a way as changing the vehicle’s front right side of the vehicle by the method of driving the vehicle in the second lane to the other parallel.