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 June 6, 2016, around 16:49, the Plaintiff’s vehicle traveling along the three-lanes of the third-lane road in front of the third apartment road in the upper East-dong, the upper-dong, the third apartment zone, and the two-lanes depending on the leading lane, and the Defendant’s vehicle driving along the two-lanes entered the two-lanes without entering the two-lanes as one-lane one, depending on the leading lane, and there was a traffic accident that conflicts with the upper left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle with the upper left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On August 2, 2016, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 328,490 at the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. According to the above fact of recognition on the board, the accident in this case occurred due to the negligence of the defendant vehicle that attempted to change the fleet in an unreasonable manner without entering the vehicle's own lane in accordance with the leading lane at the place of accident, and there is no evidence to deem that the accident in this case occurred while the plaintiff vehicle attempted to change the fleet while the vehicle was trying to change the fleet, as alleged by the defendant.

However, in the white line section where the change of the vehicle is permitted, even the Plaintiff’s vehicle has a duty of care to safely drive the vehicle by examining the traffic situation of the front line. However, it is erroneous for the Plaintiff to contribute to the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damage by not taking safety measures such as discovering and accelerating the Defendant’s vehicle seeking the change of the vehicle by neglecting the duty of care. Considering various circumstances such as the location of the instant accident, developments leading up to the occurrence of the accident, and the degree of the collision and damage of the vehicle, the fault ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle shall be 10:90.