1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The circumstances surrounding the instant accident are as follows.

At the time of the accident, the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle CD on March 15, 2017 at the time of the accident, 12:30 on March 15, 2017, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the situation of the collision with the road of 155-lanes, south-dong, Incheon Metropolitan City, along the four-lanes of the above location, was driving along the four-lanes among the five-lanes of the above location. The Plaintiff’s vehicle behind the Defendant’s vehicle changed from the three-lanes to the four-lanes of the front part of the vehicle. The Defendant’s vehicle paid the insurance money amounting to KRW 1,979,00 as the repair cost of the Defendant’s vehicle.

B. The E Committee decided 70% of the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the instant accident and 30% of the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle. Accordingly, on November 29, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,385,300 to the Defendant amounting to 70% of the above insurance amount.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the Plaintiff’s Defendant’s vehicle was shocked with the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving the four-lanes while changing from the three-lanes to the four-lanes, the primary cause of the instant accident is the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle driver who alters the vehicle vehicle unlawfully and at least 70% of the fault ratio of the Defendant’s vehicle driver, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to return to the Plaintiff part of the amount of indemnity paid by the Plaintiff on the premise that the rate of the negligence ratio of the Defendant’s vehicle driver is 30%.

B. The Defendant’s instant accident was presumed by the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which had been driven by the Plaintiff while normally completing the change of the lane from the three lanes to the four lanes, and thus, at least 70% of the fault ratio of the Plaintiff’s driver should be recognized.

3. Determination

A. We examine the facts found in the above basic facts, and each of the above evidence, and in particular, according to the video of Gap evidence No. 5, the defendant vehicle in this case.