1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. Around 14:30 on January 7, 2019, the Defendant’s vehicle driven along the four-lanes of the 5-lane road in the west-dong, Seonam-dong, Seonam-si, Seonam-do, Seonam-do, and was changed to three-lanes, the Defendant’s vehicle shocked the part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s left-hand part of the said three-lanes on the upper-hand part of the Defendant’s vehicle while driving the said three-lanes.

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

After the Defendant paid 2,518,00 won for the repair cost of the Defendant’s vehicle due to the instant accident (the deduction of KRW 500,000,00 for self-charge), the Defendant claimed that the ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s fault in the instant accident would be 50%, and filed a request for deliberation with the indemnity dispute deliberation council. The above deliberation council decided that the ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s fault was 30%. On June 25, 2019, the Plaintiff paid 905,400 won (=3,018,000 won (= KRW 2,518,000), which is 30% of the sum of the above repair cost and self-contributory charges, to the Defendant pursuant to the said decision.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3, or the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

가. 과실비율 앞서 인정한 사실에다가 앞서 든 증거 및 변론 전체의 취지를 더하여 인정할 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 이 사건 사고의 주된 과실은 우측 도로에서 합류하여 곧바로 차선 변경을 시도한 피고 차량에게 있으나, ① 이 사건 사고가 발생한 장소는 우측 도로에서 합류하는 차선이 끝난 직후의 지점으로서 원고 차량은 위 도로에서 합류한 차량들이 차선을 변경할 수 있음을 충분히 예상할 수 있었던 점, ② 피고 차량은 이 사건 사고 당시에 좌측 방향 지시등을 켠 채로 서서히 차선 변경을...