1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

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. On March 10, 2018, around 09:20 on March 10, 2018, there was an accident in which the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle shocked on the instant internship vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On March 21, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,845,000 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, except for KRW 500,000,000, as the insurance money according to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence 2, 3, and 4 (including each number), each statement, video, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence as indicated earlier prior to the determination of the percentage of negligence, and the fact-finding results on the Seoul Southern Police Station of this Court, in full view of the overall purport of the arguments, the following facts can be acknowledged: (a) if the previous vehicle entered as one lane at the southwest of the same class, which is the place where the accident in this case occurred, and the previous one is the lane that is the one in which the former vehicle is unable to be driven, the latter vehicle shall be driven in order following the previous one; (b) the Plaintiff immediately before the accident in this case occurred, was the one in which the vehicle was in front of the foregoing U.S. vehicle; (c) however, the Defendant vehicle, which is the vehicle driving after the wide width of the said U.S. vehicle, was almost waiting to walk on the left side of the Plaintiff vehicle; and (d) the fact that the Plaintiff vehicle was shocked by

Considering the road form of the accident site, the occurrence of the accident, etc., the accident of this case conflicts with the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle without considering the main fault of the driver of the defendant's vehicle who tried to drive the vehicle in order without following the prior vehicle in order.