2. Of the appeal costs, the part resulting from the intervention is the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

The Defendant stated in the port that the instant accident was attributable to the negligence of the Defendant’s Intervenor, the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle, and therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the indemnity amount to the Plaintiff.

The defendant and the defendant joining the defendant are the 2-A of the accident of this case.

The plaintiff's vehicle driver's negligence of duty of care and safe driving, and the defendant's fault that did not discover the change of course of the defendant's vehicle and the defendant's fault that caused concurrent accidents.

2. Determination

A. Facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff’s D vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”)

As to the E-vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant-vehicle”), the Defendant

2) On October 26, 2017, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driven along the instant road in front of the Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F-do, the three-lanes around 18:35 on October 26, 2017, to the instant road (hereinafter referred to as “instant road”).

While the Defendant’s vehicle driven by the Defendant’s Intervenor driving along the two-lanes of the instant road, the Plaintiff’s front left side and the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle driving along the instant three-lanes in the front side of the instant road was obstructed to enter the F building located on the right side of the instant road.

(3) On November 1, 2017, the Plaintiff paid the insurance proceeds of KRW 668,000 with the Plaintiff’s automobile repair cost, etc. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry of No. 3, and evidence Nos. 7-2 through 7-4, each of the images and arguments of No. 7-2 and No. 1 and No. 2, respectively, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments of the Plaintiff.

B. According to Article 19(3) of the Road Traffic Act, the driver of any motor vehicle intends to change the course of the motor vehicle.