A. With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. At around 14:00 on November 17, 2016, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driving three lanes of the three-lanes in front of the exit of the 3rd Dok-dong, Mapo-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant road”). The Defendant’s vehicle was driving from the front side of the exit of the Defendant vehicle, the front side of the right side of the Plaintiff vehicle, while entering the front side of the exit of the Defendant vehicle, and the Defendant’s vehicle was driving from the front side of the exit of the 3rd Dok-dong, Mapo-gu, Seoul. (hereinafter “instant road”).

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

On November 28, 2016, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 3,255,000 at the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 8, Eul evidence 1 to 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The following circumstances revealing the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence revealed as to the occurrence of the liability for damages, namely, ① the vehicle travelling along the instant small road from the instant small road to the instant four-lane. The Defendant vehicle immediately attempted to enter the instant small road to the three-lanes as indicated in the instant case, and immediately shocked the Plaintiff vehicle on the three-lane, and ② the driver is not obliged to change the course if it might interfere with the normal traffic of other vehicles running in the direction to change the course of the vehicle (Article 19(3) of the Road Traffic Act). The Defendant vehicle is in the front three-lane at the time of changing the course from the instant small road to the instant one. However, it is unreasonable for the Defendant vehicle to change the course.