1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is a mutual aid operator who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with B (hereinafter “Defendant”) on the vehicle B.

B. On September 21, 2016, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle on September 21, 2016, and driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle into four lanes on the fourth-lane road in front of the Sadong Water Defense Headquarters in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and changed the vehicle into three-lanes, the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle driven into three-lanes in the same direction followed by the lower part on the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

On October 17, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,650,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements and images, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff's vehicle operated direction direction, etc. at a sufficient distance before the change of the vehicle, and even though the change of the vehicle was made, the defendant vehicle was forced to speed and shock the front of the plaintiff vehicle, and the accident of this case was caused by the whole negligence of the defendant vehicle driver.

B. According to the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that the instant accident was caused by the overall negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle that changed the vehicle from the fourth to the third fourth lane without properly examining the Defendant’s vehicle in the rear side. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant’s vehicle was accelerated even though the Plaintiff discovered the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with a different conclusion, the defendant's appeal is accepted, and the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant in the judgment of the court