2...

A. With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On August 13, 2017, around 11:25, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was proceeding on the top of the second line road on the Daegu-U.S. Busan-U.S. Highway (hereinafter “the instant accident”). However, in the process where the Defendant’s vehicle proceeding on the second line of the said road was changing to the one-lane, there was an accident in which the Plaintiff’s vehicle shocked the side side of the Plaintiff’s right side on the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

C. On September 28, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,859,300 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

가. 원고의 주장 원고 차량은 이 사건 사고 당시 1차로를 정상적으로 주행하고 있었는데, 2차로를 진행하고 있던 피고 차량이 깜빡이를 켜는 등의 어떠한 신호도 없이 갑자기 1차로로 차선을 변경하면서 후행하던 원고 차량을 충격한 것으로, 이 사건 사고는 피고 차량의 일방 과실로 인하여 발생하였으므로 피고는 원고 차량의 수리비로 지출된 2,859,300원 및 이에 대한 지연손해금을 원고에게 지급할 의무가 있다.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was negligent in proceeding without taking any measures such as neglecting and speeding the duty of the front and the right and the right and the right at the time of the instant accident, and such negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle also contributed to the occurrence of the instant accident. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion premised on negligence is without merit.

3. Determination

(a) All drivers of vehicles that have a right to indemnity shall be likely to impede normal traffic of other vehicles running in the direction to which they intend to change course of such vehicles;