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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with the Plaintiff Company A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with the Defendant Company B (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. Around 11:30 on December 3, 2016, the Plaintiff’s vehicle is proceeding in the direction of the front-hand distance of the Defendant vehicle using two lanes among the five-lanes of the Daegu-gu Franchising road. However, the Defendant’s vehicle, which was proceeding on the one-lane road, finds the vehicle parked on the front-hand side of the Defendant vehicle late late, and finds it fast to avoid this, and changes the two-lanes to the front-hand part of the Defendant vehicle’s front-hand part of the vehicle. The Plaintiff’s vehicle shocks the front-hand part of the vehicle in the front-hand part of the vehicle in the front-hand part of the vehicle in the front-hand part of the vehicle in order to turn left right at the front-hand side of the vehicle. The Plaintiff’s vehicle shocks the front-hand part of the vehicle in front-hand part of the vehicle in front on the front side.

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

On January 9, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 9,820,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, 5 through 8, Eul's evidence 1 (including Serial Nos. 1, 2, 5 through 8), the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant's vehicle changed his own lane in order to avoid shock and shock of the front side's vehicle which was found late, and the plaintiff's vehicle as the plaintiff's vehicle could not have predicted in advance the change of the lane of the defendant vehicle, and therefore, the responsibility for the accident of this case is entirely attributable to the defendant's vehicle.

In this regard, the defendant is negligent in failing to comply with the appropriate response of the plaintiff's vehicle immediately after shock with the defendant's vehicle, so this negligence of the plaintiff's vehicle is also the same.