2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer that entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. At around 21:00 on December 21, 2015, C, a driver of the Plaintiff, driven the front part of the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle running along the two-lanes while moving into three-lanes from the 1.C. bank of Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu to the intersection of the Southernnam-dong Intersection, the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, at the 1.C. bank to the 4-lane road, and changing the course into two-lanes, the front part of the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On January 8, 2016, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 1,019,00 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 through 7 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is an accident caused by the Defendant’s driver’s attempt to change the lane in an intersection in which the change of course is prohibited, and is caused by the Defendant’s unilateral negligence. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above vehicle repair cost of KRW 1,019,00 as the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, who acquired the right to claim damages by subrogation pursuant to Article 682 of the Commercial Act, and the damages incurred therefrom.

B. The following circumstances, i.e., (i) the Plaintiff’s vehicle proceeding in the three-lane prior to the instant accident, and changing the two-lanes into the two-lanes, and (ii) the Plaintiff’s vehicle conflicts with the Defendant’s vehicle, which entered into a direction for changing its course from the two-lanes to the three-lanes, while changing the two-lanes into the two-lanes; and (iii) the Plaintiff’s vehicle shows a flick shape in contact with the Defendant’s vehicle from the left door to the left side.