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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract for D vehicles, and the Defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into an automobile mutual aid contract for E vehicles.

B. The circumstances leading up to the accident are as follows:

At the time of the accident, in the situation of the collision between the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle (Plaintiff’s vehicle) and the Defendant’s insured vehicle (Defendant’s vehicle) DD on September 18, 2018 at the time of the accident, around 18:30 square meters, the Plaintiff’s vehicle used the direction, etc. to the right side of the vehicle and attempted to change the course into three lanes from the two lanes among the four-lanes of the road, and then the vehicle operated the direction, etc. to the right side of the vehicle (hereinafter “the road in this case”). On October 25, 2018, the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s repair cost 1,349,300 won for the repair of the vehicle in this case and the vehicle’s right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “the accident in this case”). The purport of subparagraphs 1 through 47, 8, and 37 of the Plaintiff’s certificate of video evidence, the purport of the oral argument in each of the following subparagraphs is as follows: < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20301, Oct. 25, 201, 200

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s vehicle has already operated the direction direction, etc. to give an advance notice of a change of course from the two-lane to the three-lane, and only after the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the three-lane, the Plaintiff’s vehicle shocked the Plaintiff vehicle while changing course from the four-lane to the three-lane without operating the direction direction light. The instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s primary negligence, which violated the method of changing course, and did not properly examine the front side and the right and the right.

Therefore, the fault ratio of the defendant vehicle should be assessed to 70%.

B. The Plaintiff’s vehicle attempted to change the vehicle lanes into three lanes due to the front section of the vehicle located in the front section. At the time, the Defendant’s vehicle had already entered the third lane. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s vehicle is a career.