1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to pay below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The basic facts

The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract on behalf of the Plaintiff-owned B vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff-owned vehicle”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract on behalf of the C vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant-owned vehicle”).

B. On June 5, 2014, around 13:40 on June 5, 2014, A, while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the intersection of the intersection in the Gangseonam-nam Station, conflict with the Defendant’s vehicle on the two-lanes while changing the two-lanes from the three-lane to the two-lanes.

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

On June 13, 2014, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 1,702,100 in sum with the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion;

A. The plaintiff asserts that since the plaintiff's vehicle that changed from a three-lane to a two-lane conflict with the defendant's vehicle that changed the two-lane to a two-lane, the accident in this case is caused by the negligence of both parties, and therefore, the defendant should bear the responsibility in proportion to the negligence ratio of the defendant's driver.

B. The defendant asserts that the accident is caused by the total negligence of the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle, since the plaintiff's vehicle which was parked in a three-lane has a shocked accident of the defendant's vehicle that was parked in a two-lane as soon as possible at the wind when changing the two-lanes.

3. In other words, the following circumstances are acknowledged by adding up the descriptions of Gap evidence No. 5, the images of Eul evidence No. 5, and the overall purport of the pleadings, which are, the plaintiff's vehicle attempted to enter two lanes by one set of three lanes prior to the driver's failure to drive the vehicle, and the driver's failure to drive the vehicle came into the two lanes. The driver's failure to drive the vehicle is a vehicle by the defendant's vehicle, which is going into the aftermast, going into the second lane. At the time, the plaintiff's vehicle enters the two lanes.