2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff Oralba (hereinafter “Plaintiff Oralba”), and the Defendant is the driver of the Defendant D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On July 26, 2017, around 08:22, the Defendant’s vehicle tried to turn on the direction-setting, etc. for left-hand side from the second lane to the first lane among the two-lanes adjacent to the estuary bank intersection at the lower end of Busan Seo-gu, Busan, and tried to change the two-lanes, and the vehicle E (hereinafter “victimd vehicle”) proceeds in the latter part of the first lane, and the change of the lane was waived and proceeded in the two-lane as it is.

However, as the damaged vehicle is accelerated, the plaintiff Orala, who followed the vehicle at one lane, shocked the right back of the damaged vehicle.

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

On August 4, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 646,720 at the repair cost of the damaged vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant vehicle used to change the lane into a one-lane, had no choice but to drive the damaged vehicle normally and subsequently caused the accident in this case. Thus, the driver of the defendant vehicle is liable to compensate for the damage inflicted on the damaged vehicle due to the accident in this case, and it is reasonable to view the driver's fault ratio of the defendant vehicle as 50%.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the facts of the above recognition and the statements in subparagraph 1 to 4, 5, and 7 of the Eul evidence No. 1, namely, the defendant vehicle's direction, etc., and attempted to change the lane from the two-lane to the one-lane, and the situation of the damaged vehicle that is going after trying to change the two-lanes, leading to the two-lane change as they are, and passing the two-lane as they are,. The plaintiff Oraba, which was followed by the vehicle under speed reduction, was driving the damaged vehicle, and the driver of the damaged vehicle.