A. Defendant B is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to D (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and the Defendant C is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to EM vehicle owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”).

B. On February 14, 2018, around 15:15, the Defendant’s vehicle driven along the four lanes near the construction site of the G company located in Seoul F, along the four lanes of the four lanes, and entered the three lanes by changing the course into the three lanes.

At the time, the Plaintiff, while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle and driving on the two lanes between the four-lanes of the above road, did not verify the Defendant’s vehicle that had changed the lanes as above and did not change the two-lanes to the three-lanes, and there was an accident that conflicts between the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle.

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

The Plaintiff sustained injury to salt, tension, etc. due to the instant accident, which requires approximately two weeks of medical treatment, and the Plaintiff spent KRW 241,00 as medical expenses, and KRW 3,378,980 as repair expenses for the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Based on recognition] The statements and images of Gap evidence 1 to 11, Eul evidence 1 to 7 (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Claim against the defendant B

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant’s vehicle was running along the four-lanes of the above road, resulting in the collision with the Plaintiff’s vehicle by changing the vehicle’s three-lanes. Therefore, the instant accident occurred due to the total negligence of the Defendant vehicle.

The Plaintiff sustained injury, such as salt, tension, and snow sloping, due to the instant accident. As a result, the Plaintiff suffered from lost income the amount of KRW 1,00,000, 241,000, 3,378,980, and 4,000 as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and 3,378,980, and 4,000,00 for mental damage.

Accordingly, Defendant B, the insurer of the Defendant vehicle, is the insurer.