On December 6, 2017, at the time of the accident, the insured vehicle A, at the time of the accident covered by the Plaintiff insured vehicle B, and at around 17:45 on December 6, 2017, the insured vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”) in the vicinity of the intersection in front of the boundary line in the Dong-dong-dong (hereinafter “the Plaintiff vehicle”) attempted to change the vehicle from the three-lanes of the above road to the one-lanes after the right of the right of the Defendant insured vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) going in accordance with the two-lanes of the above road at the end of the end of the road at the time of the accident and the two-lanes of the vehicle at the end of the right of the right of the Plaintiff vehicle at the time of the accident and the 3,799,00,000,000,000 won of the self-paid vehicle in front of the left of the Plaintiff vehicle (based on recognition), there is no dispute over the purport of the entire oral argument as a whole.

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant accident occurred due to the unilateral negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle, and that the Plaintiff claimed the total amount of the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff and the damages for delay from the day following the payment date. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was negligent on

According to the above facts, the accident of this case shall not change the course when it is likely to obstruct the normal passage of another vehicle running in the direction of the change in case where the plaintiff vehicle intends to change the course of the negligent vehicle that failed to live well while attempting to change the course of the vehicle (Article 19(3) of the Road Traffic Act).

(Article 25 (1) of the Road Traffic Act) and immediately before and after the right-hand of the vehicle, the plaintiff vehicle, which is the preceding vehicle, shows an attitude to change the vehicle into one lane.