1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to a vehicle A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a taxi company that owns a vehicle B (hereinafter “Defendant”), and the Intervenor joining the Defendant is a mutual aid business operator who entered into an automobile mutual aid contract with respect to the Defendant vehicle.

B. On February 26, 2017, around 05:45, the Defendant’s vehicle was driving in the direction of the road, which is 407-ro 407, the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle, along the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle, at the location where the two-lanes are located, in the direction of the opening-distance distance, from the direction of the road, which is 407-ro 407, the front side of the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle while driving in the direction of the left side. However, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driving in the lower side of the Defendant’s vehicle, after passing through the safety zone from the front of the Defendant’s vehicle while entering the Defendant’s vehicle, and going into the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle while passing the Defendant’s vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as "the accident of this case". (c)

The Plaintiff spent KRW 2,00,000,000 on March 15, 2017 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (in the case of additional numbers, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. At the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant’s vehicle attempted to change the lane to the lane of the instant accident by lowering the sudden speed during the instant accident. The fault ratio of the Defendant’s vehicle in relation to the instant accident is 70%.

B. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's vehicle entered the safety zone where the progress is prohibited, and tried to overtake the defendant's vehicle, and caused the accident of this case. The plaintiff's allegation that the accident of this case occurred entirely on the plaintiff's vehicle.

3. The judgment safety zone is a pedestrian crossing the road, a vehicle or horse driving.