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

B. Around 8:20 on March 13, 2017, the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle, who caused a traffic accident, stopped rapidly at a reduced speed in order not to run against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, who changed the vehicle from the four lanes to the three lanes while driving along the three lanes from the tin-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant road”) more along the nick-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong (hereinafter “instant road”). As a result, an accident that exceeds C,

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

Until August 25, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 19,467,840 in total, including medical expenses, etc. for C, with the insurance proceeds from the instant accident.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s negligence in performing the duty of front-time watching, and thus, the Defendant shall pay 50% of the negligence of the Defendant’s driver, out of the insurance proceeds paid by the Plaintiff due to the instant accident.

B. In full view of the evidence revealed earlier, the instant accident ought to enter a three-lane with a sufficient distance from the subsequent three-lanes in the process of changing the vehicle that the Plaintiff’s driver who entered the four-lane from the apartment entrance road to the instant road in order to avoid the vehicle parked in the instant four-lanes. However, such duty of care is neglected, despite the fact that the Plaintiff’s driver is required to enter the three-lanes in the course of changing the three-lanes to the three-lanes.