1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The cost of participation in the proceedings.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff Company B (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant Company C (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. On August 21, 2015, at around 17:05, the Defendant’s Intervenor driven the Defendant’s vehicle, and was proceeding as D from the elim-distance flooding plane along the three-lanes located in the Seogu Seo-gu, Seogu, Daegu. However, while the Plaintiff’s right-hand vehicle tried to change its lanes from the two-lanes to the one-lane, the Defendant’s right-hand front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was shocked on the back side of the right-hand rear part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

On September 4, 2015, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 1,672,00 at the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion caused negligence in the Defendant’s Intervenor’s failure to perform his duty of care in the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damages therefrom. The Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 501,600 corresponding to the fault ratio of the Defendant’s vehicle out of the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff, as it reaches 30% of the negligence ratio of the Defendant’s Intervenor.

B. As to whether the instant accident was negligent, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the evidence revealed earlier, namely, ① the Plaintiff’s vehicle prior to the instant accident was driven mainly over the first and the second lanes, and the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s vehicle was driven at the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

When the first line has been expanded to the left side of the proceeding direction, the lane has been changed to the expanded lane (the first lane), the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the second lane on the basis of the expanded lane, and then attempted to change the first lane to the second lane. The Intervenor’s Intervenor is the Plaintiff.