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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicles”). The Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to C vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

B. On November 29, 2013, the Plaintiff Intervenor: (a) driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle at around 20:10 on November 29, 2013; (b) left the intersection in front of the Southern Terminal of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, leaving the intersection from the intersection to the intersection of the Southern Terminal of the Southern Terminal at the intersection of the Southern Terminal of the southwest-gu, and tried to change the vehicle from the intersection to the two-lane, the Plaintiff’s assistant stopped the vehicle at the right-hand one and attempted to change the vehicle to the left-hand one; and (c) there was an accident of conflict between the two-lane of the Defendant

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On January 6, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,100,000 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10 (if there are several numbers, including each number), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the accident in this case occurred due to the negligence of the defendant's vehicle, whether the right straight line is left or left, and the ratio of the negligence reaches 90%, and the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's vehicle was shocked by the defendant's vehicle that had almost completed the change of the car without the front line without the front line. Thus, the plaintiff's assistant participant was also at considerable negligence.

B. The following circumstances revealed by the above facts and the evidence revealed, namely, the Defendant’s vehicle has attempted to change the lane to the right-hand left-hand lane. However, the Plaintiff’s vehicle also attempted to change the lane to the right-hand direction by driving the two lanes from three lanes to two lanes, and the Defendant’s vehicle is changed to the two lanes first.