A. With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On August 27, 2016, at around 14:50, the Defendant’s vehicle driven along the first lane of the four-lanes near the Daegu Northern Highway, along the four-lanes near the Daegu NorthIC, and the two-lanes changed to the two-lanes, the lower part of the front part of the Plaintiff’s left-hand side of the vehicle, which was proceeding along the two-lanes, was shocked into the right-hand part of the Defendant vehicle.

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

On November 8, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,356,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle with respect to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 2 through 4, images, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The following circumstances revealing the occurrence and scope of liability for damages and the purport of the entire arguments in the evidence as seen earlier, namely, the road in which the instant accident occurred is an expressway driven along the speed of the vehicle. As such, the driver of the Defendant vehicle seeking to change the vehicle from the first lane to the second lane has a duty of care to safely change the vehicle in a manner that does not obstruct the passage of the vehicle driving on the second lane after securing a sufficient safety distance. However, the Defendant vehicle, while the first lane runs nearly in the second lane with the Plaintiff vehicle, seems to rapidly change the vehicle into the second lane as it temporarily stops in the front lane. The damaged part of the Plaintiff vehicle is above the front string part of the driver’s seat, and the damaged part of the Defendant vehicle is the front string part of the front string part of the vehicle, and considering the shock part and the degree of damage of both the Defendant and the Defendant vehicle, it appears to be sufficient that the Plaintiff vehicle entered the second lane.