2. The plaintiff's claim as to the above cancellation part is dismissed.

At the time of the accident, the insured vehicle CD of the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff at the time of the accident, around February 15:20, 2018, and around February 3, 2018, the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff at the location of Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff vehicle”) is moving along two lanes from three lanes to two lanes on the left-hand side in order to avoid the collision with the Plaintiff vehicle, and the Defendant’s driver vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant vehicle”) who was moving along two lanes on the left-hand side while avoiding the collision with the vehicle of the Plaintiff, while keeping the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the Plaintiff at the left-hand side in order to avoid the collision with the Plaintiff vehicle, the payment of KRW 902,00 to the damaged vehicle of the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “victim vehicle”) was paid 902,00 won (based on recognition),

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the plaintiff's assertion is that the accident of this case is caused by a joint tort caused by the non-Contact cause of the plaintiff's vehicle and the defendant's vehicle, and it is reasonable to view that the defendant's negligence is 40% in light of the circumstances of the accident of this case where the defendant's Jeonju-si and the violation of the duty to

Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks reimbursement equivalent to 40% of the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff upon subrogation from the insurer to the Defendant.

B. The following circumstances that can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence revealed earlier, namely, ① the distance between the Defendant’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle, which was proceeding from the rear side to the second two lanes, at the time of commencing a change of course from the third to the second two lanes, are not about about 15 meters, and even if the Defendant’s rapid operation, it seems difficult to avoid collision with the Plaintiff’s vehicle, it would be difficult to avoid a collision with the Plaintiff’s vehicle. ② In addition, the Defendant rapidly changed the course to the first one to avoid collision with the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the damaged vehicle is proceeding at the second to the Defendant’s rear lane, and at the time of the change of course, the Defendant’s instant vehicle was damaged at the time