1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff regarding the order to pay below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the insurer of Dmast Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), and the Defendant is the insurer of Ebenz vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On August 1, 2017, when the Plaintiff’s vehicle enters a one-lane from the shooting distance in front of the G parking lot located in Bupyeong-si F on August 1, 2017 to turn left, the Defendant’s vehicle was to turn out from the front line of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the front line of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and to enter the same line as the Plaintiff’s vehicle. The Defendant’s vehicle was to turn out from the front line of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the front line of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. As the left side part of the Defendant’s vehicle, the repair cost of KRW 1,505,000 was shock

[The defendant acknowledged that the plaintiff's vehicle and the defendant's vehicle themselves shocked with each other, but argued to the effect that the plaintiff's vehicle was damaged by the above accident in melting the damaged parts of the plaintiff's vehicle taken immediately after the accident. However, considering the following evidence, it is sufficiently proven that the plaintiff's vehicle was damaged to the above extent by the above accident.]

On September 25, 2017, the Plaintiff paid the amount equivalent to the above repair cost to the owner of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 2 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Examining the circumstances at the time of the accident recognized by comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant’s vehicle attempted to leave the Defendant’s vehicle to the first line in order to avoid interference with the second line, and the Plaintiff is deemed to have an accident not to reduce the speed so as not to allow it.

The defendant's vehicle should not interfere with the normal passage of the plaintiff's vehicle when changing course, but the accident occurred while trying to change course. The plaintiff's vehicle also needs not permit the defendant's vehicle that attempts to drive safely even though the plaintiff is obligated to drive safely, and the possibility of the accident is increased.