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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to D vehicles.

B. On September 7, 2018, the Plaintiff’s vehicle tried to change the lane into a three-lane while driving on the two-lanes of the Young-dong Highway in the middle of the three-lanes of the Seopo-si, Seopo-si.

During that period, the plaintiff's vehicle is faced with the defendant's vehicle that was trying to combine more than three lanes with the defendant's vehicle that had a white solid line on the other side of the above expressway, and the left side of the defendant's vehicle and the front side of the right side of the plaintiff's vehicle conflict with each other.

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

On November 30, 2018, the Plaintiff disbursed insurance proceeds of KRW 1,443,00 (excluding KRW 200,000 on its own charges) at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5-9, 11, Eul evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole video and pleading

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to Article 19(3) of the Road Traffic Act regarding the instant accident, the driver of any motor vehicle shall not change the course when it is likely to impede normal traffic of other motor vehicles running in the direction to which the driver intends to change course of the motor vehicle.

On the other hand, drivers of motor vehicles and riders of horses shall not change the course of motor vehicles and horses at a place where a safety sign is installed and a change of course is particularly prohibited, and according to Article 8(1) and (2) and attached Table 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, white-ray is a safety sign prohibiting change of course.

In full view of the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant vehicle has changed the course to three lanes beyond the white line prohibiting a change of course, and the plaintiff vehicle has entered the three lanes earlier than the plaintiff vehicle, but it can be recognized that the defendant vehicle has changed to three lanes just without considering it.