1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Intervenor’s succeeding to the Plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff Company A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business operator who entered into an automobile mutual aid contract with respect to the Plaintiff Company B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”). On May 27, 2015, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor succeeded to the rights and obligations under the automobile insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff Company after receiving the entire business from the Plaintiff.

B. Around 18:40 on December 5, 2014, the driver of the Defendant vehicle driven the Defendant vehicle and attempted to change the vehicle to a three-lane, among the four-lanes near the Macheon-dong, Gwangju, Gwangju, while driving the two-lanes, the rear part of the driver’s seat of the Plaintiff vehicle driving the three-lanes into the right side of the Defendant vehicle.

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

On January 22, 2015, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 1,128,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence No. 1, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence revealed earlier, namely, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driven at a certain speed depending on the three-lane and the Defendant’s vehicle was difficult to find the Plaintiff vehicle, despite the fact that it was shocking around the rear wheels of the Plaintiff’s seat, and considering the shocking location, etc., the Plaintiff’s vehicle appears to have been unable to prevent the accident by examining the movement of the Defendant vehicle, it is reasonable to deem that the instant accident was caused by the previous negligence of the Defendant vehicle, which attempted to change the lane, without thoroughly examining the traffic situation of the vehicle to be changed.

B. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff amounting to KRW 1,128,00 as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the first instance court.