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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to the CE3 vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to Done Star vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On September 29, 2018, around 12:26, at around 2018, the fourth line road located in Gangseo-gu, Gangseo-gu, Gangseo-gu, Gangseo-gu, Seoul and the roads combined to the right-hand side of the 444-do road, were in contact with the lower part of the lower part of the Defendant’s vehicle, which started due to a change in the front signal, and the lower part of the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 5, Eul evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was in transit along with the main line and was under stop.

However, upon the alteration of the signal, the instant accident occurred at the wind to drive the Plaintiff’s vehicle at a speed of more than 2 lanes without checking the Plaintiff’s vehicle that stopped on the right side of the horse, which was caused by the unilateral negligence of the Defendant vehicle. As such, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, KRW 878,100, and damages for delay.

B. According to the above facts and the evidence revealed earlier, the Defendant’s vehicle located on the two-three-lane direction as the front line signal was changed, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle behind the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle also proceeded toward the same direction.

(A) If the Plaintiff’s vehicle was at the time of the accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s vehicle was at the time of the accident shall not be accepted. If the vehicle was at the time of the accident, such as the Plaintiff’s assertion, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, who was sufficiently aware of the situation of the front line, should have been driven safely by the Defendant following the front line.