1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to B (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. Around 13:00 on February 22, 2013, when driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle, driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle into the front part of the Defendant’s left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle running along the two lanes of the five-lane road located in Gangseo-dong 1, Mapo-gu, Seoul. On the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the Defendant’s driver shocked the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle running along the two-lane of the said road into the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. In order to avoid the shock, the Defendant’s driver, by changing the lane to the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle, shocked the D driver’s E vehicle running along the three-lane of the said road (hereinafter referred to as the “victim’s damaged vehicle”), and suffered injury, such as salt, tension, and tension, e.g., the e., the e., the e., the e., e., the e., the e., the e., e., f., the f.

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

The Plaintiff paid KRW 12,434,390,00 as insurance money to Samsung Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., the insurer that concluded the automobile insurance contract regarding the instant damaged vehicle as compensation for damages to D and F due to the instant accident, until April 30, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s instant accident was caused by the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle entering the lane in which the Defendant’s vehicle was entering the lane by changing the lane, and thus, the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle, who violated the duty of Jeonju, such as the negligence of the Plaintiff’s driver who obstructed the passage of other vehicles and the failure to discover the entry of the Plaintiff’s vehicle into the lane.