1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the automobile C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid operator who has entered into an automobile mutual aid contract with respect to the automobile D (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On November 19, 2017, at around 19:48, the Defendant’s vehicle driven a two-lane between the five-lanes in the vicinity of the access road to Blackdong in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and was changed to the first lane, the front part of the lower part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was previously changed to the first lane, was shocked.

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

On December 21, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,967,00 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff's vehicle completed the change of course from the first lane to the second lane, and since the defendant's vehicle has shocked the plaintiff's vehicle while changing the vehicle from the second lane to the first lane, the accident in this case occurred due to the total negligence of the defendant's vehicle. 2) The defendant's vehicle driving in the first lane, while the defendant's vehicle is overtaking the defendant's vehicle, and changed to the second lane, immediately after the rapid change to the second lane, the plaintiff's vehicle was driven. Thus, since the defendant's vehicle was changing to the first lane to the second lane to avoid this, it should be exempted from liability due to force majeure.

B. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged based on the facts recognized earlier and the evidence cited earlier, namely, ① in the case of changing a lane, the surrounding situation should be carefully examined so as not to impede the normal passage of other vehicles entering the same direction in the same direction (Article 19(3) of the Road Traffic Act), and the Plaintiff’s vehicle attempted to change the lane without having sufficient interval with the Defendant’s vehicle in the lane to be changed, and immediately after changing the lane.