1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the vehicle A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) for the vehicle B (hereinafter “Defendant”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to the vehicle B (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. Around 14:40 on July 3, 2014, the driver of the Defendant vehicle driven the Defendant vehicle, driving the Defendant vehicle, driving the six-lane road in front of the Gwangjin-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, along the two-lanes from the boundary of the Bllin Intersection to the intersection intersection, and changing the course to the three-lanes, immediately reduce the speed, and attempted to turn the two-lanes into the four-lane. The Plaintiff’s vehicle driving the Defendant vehicle on the same side along the three-lanes around the front right edge of the Defendant vehicle and the rear wheels, following the entry into the four-lanes.

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

On January 21, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,517,840 as the repair cost for the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case entered the three-lanes to change the course into the four-lanes, and the accident occurred by negligence after the driver of the defendant's vehicle who was driving in the two-lanes. Thus, the defendant asserts to the effect that the plaintiff is obliged to pay to the plaintiff the indemnity amount of KRW 1,366,050 (i.e., 1,517,840 (=1,517,840) equivalent to the fault ratio of the driver of the defendant's vehicle in the above repair cost x 0.9,00 won, and the delay damages.

In this regard, the defendant asserts to the effect that the amount equivalent to the ratio of the driver's fault (40%) of the plaintiff's driver should be deducted as long as the driver neglected to maintain the safety distance.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the instant accident did not take into account the safety distance with the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which is normally going on three lanes.