1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff equivalent to the amount ordered to be additionally paid shall be revoked.

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 05:40 on October 23, 2018, the Plaintiff’s vehicle is proceeding one-lane in the direction of the mountain intersection and the underground road between the four-lanes of 10,000, the direction of the mountain intersection and the two-lanes of the Defendant’s vehicle, where the first and the second two-lanes are roadside, to enter the direction of the mountain intersection and the underground road from the three-lane direction of the mountain intersection in the front direction, shocked the front direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle with the front front direction of the Plaintiff’s right side.

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

On October 30, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,440,000 as insurance money after deducting KRW 200,000 from the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7, Eul evidence No. 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's right to indemnity

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case occurred due to the unilateral negligence of the defendant's vehicle that has changed the course from the three-lanes to the one-lanes of the motorway, and the defendant asserts that the negligence of the defendant's vehicle and the negligence of duty of care on the front line of the plaintiff's vehicle have occurred.

B. When a driver of any motor vehicle intends to change course of the motor vehicle and is likely to impede the normal traffic of other motor vehicles running in the direction to which he/she intends to change, he/she shall not change his/her course (Article 19(3) of the Road Traffic Act); and the driver of any motor vehicle shall not cross, drive or drive the motor vehicle to the motorway (Articles 62 and 57 of the Road Traffic Act). The following circumstances, i.e., the accident of this case recognized by considering the facts recognized as above and the overall purport of oral arguments, are acknowledged.