1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to A car volume (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to B cargo vehicles owned by Seowon Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On September 3, 2014, at around 20:00, C driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and proceeded with the first lane of the three-lane road near the Gyeongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-do. Around September 3, 2014, the Defendant, who driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle, changed the course to the three-lanes through the two-lanes. The Defendant’s vehicle driving the three-lanes to the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

By November 25, 2014, the Plaintiff paid C insurance money of KRW 423,940 as medical expenses and damages.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, or the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case occurred due to the unilateral negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle who neglected the duty to keep safe distance and the duty to keep safe distance. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the indemnity amount equivalent to the above insurance money and the damages for delay.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the accident of this case occurred from the first lane to the third lane of the plaintiff's vehicle, and that the accident of this case occurred from the wind of rapid stop, so there is no negligence on the driver of the defendant vehicle.

B. In full view of the purport of the argument in the entirety of the foregoing evidence, the main cause of the instant accident leads to the rapid change of the vehicle line by C, the Plaintiff’s driver, but only trusting that the vehicle driving another lane in the same direction as the Defendant’s driver does not necessarily change its course.