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 entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. Around 21:00 on October 2, 2015, the Defendant’s vehicle changed the lane from 30km-ro 312 to 3 lanes in the direction of the board intersection of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving on the side of the driver’s seat of the vehicle running on the three-lanes while changing the lane from 90km-ro 30km-ro to 30km-ro, Nam-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City. The lower part of the Defendant’s vehicle shocked into the front part of the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On October 29, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 7,540,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Evidence No. 6, Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 4, Evidence No. 5, Evidence No. 2, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay the amount equivalent to the insurance money and delay damages to the plaintiff who acquired the claim for damages pursuant to the subrogation provision of the insurer under Article 682(1) of the Commercial Act by paying the insurance money with respect to the accident of this case

B. As to this, the Defendant asserted that the negligence that the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle had verified the Defendant’s vehicle that had changed the vehicle normally contributed to the occurrence of the instant accident, but the Defendant also contributed to the occurrence of the instant accident: (i) the place where the instant accident occurred is the expressway that the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle driven in high speed; (ii) the instant accident was restricted at night at the time of the instant accident; (iii) the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle were moving ahead of the Defendant’s vehicle; and (iv) the instant accident appears to have occurred during the process of changing the vehicle’s lane in an unreasonable manner.