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

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with B (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) with A, and the Defendant is the insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with C (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. Around 13:00 on July 19, 2016, the driver of the Defendant vehicle entered the two lanes in front of the Defendant vehicle D into the right raft while driving behind the Plaintiff vehicle. However, the Plaintiff’s vehicle attempted to turn on the right direction, etc. from the two lanes and enter the right shoulder, and the Defendant’s left side part with the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s right shoulder.

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

On August 5, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 9,990,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the accident in this case occurred due to the previous negligence of the defendant's driver of the defendant's vehicle who entered the right pocket lane in violation of the duty of front direction direction in order to overtake the plaintiff's vehicle while proceeding behind the plaintiff's vehicle, and thus, the defendant should pay the plaintiff a reasonable amount of the insurance money paid by the plaintiff.

B. The driver of any motor vehicle shall not change course when it is likely to impede the normal traffic of other motor vehicles running in the direction to which he/she intends to change his/her route (Article 19(3) of the Road Traffic Act). According to the foregoing facts and the purport of the entire arguments and arguments, the accident in this case occurred due to the shock of the plaintiff's vehicle seeking to change the vehicle line from the two lanes to the same direction as the defendant's vehicle running in the same way as that of the defendant's vehicle, and the driver of any motor vehicle neglected his/her duty of care to change the lane safely.