1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid under paragraph 2 below shall be revoked.

2...

1. At the time of the occurrence of the basic fact-finding accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle D (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) of the Defendant Insured Vehicle D (hereinafter “Defendant”), including the time when the Plaintiff’s driver is named, took place on February 9, 2019 at the location of Gangnam-gu Seoul F (hereinafter “instant accident site”) around February 23:35, 2019 at the time of the occurrence of the accident, when the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the collision took three lanes from the long distance room of the vehicle in the next hospital to the four-lane, and entered the accident site. The entire part of the Defendant’s vehicle on the left side while changing its course from four lanes to three-lanes, and the part on the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle paid the mutual-aid fund of KRW 721,000, the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the mutual-aid fund of KRW 721,000, March 8, 2019 are as follows.

[Based on recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1-5 (including additional number), Gap evidence Nos. 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case is due to the negligence of 100% of the defendant vehicle that rapidly changed the course without closely examining the movement of the vehicle operating on the three-lanes.

The defendant asserts to the effect that the negligence of the plaintiff's vehicle should be recognized at least 30%, as an accident that the plaintiff's vehicle continued to proceed at the same speed without driving concession to the defendant vehicle, even though the defendant's vehicle turned on the left-hand direction and expressed the intention of change of course.

B. (1) In light of the overall circumstances, such as the characteristics of the accident site in this case, the background of the accident, the degree of conflict, and the degree of shock, as seen above, and the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view the negligence ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle in this case as 15:85.

The driver of any motor vehicle who intends to change course shall be the vehicle running ahead of it in order to change its speed, course and course.