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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to AK5 vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has concluded a mutual aid contract with respect to B cargo vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On December 2, 2015, around 12:00, the road near the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Seocho-gu Busan Metropolitan Winter Highway, and the vehicle of the Plaintiff was moving to a two-lane in the five-lane, while the vehicle was moving to a three-lane, the left side of the Defendant vehicle driving to a three-lane in the same direction as at the time of the horse was shocked with the front side of the Plaintiff vehicle’s right side.

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

The Plaintiff paid insurance money of KRW 604,700 to the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

【In the absence of any dispute, the Plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion of the Plaintiff’s purport of the Plaintiff’s presentation of the Plaintiff’s presentation of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and Eul’s evidence No. 1, and the Plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings, by neglecting his duty of care in driving to change the lane safely, and by changing the lane from the four lanes to the three lanes, and by changing the lane from the two lanes to the three lanes, it is reasonable to view the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s fault ratio as 50:50.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff an amount equivalent to the ratio of negligence of KRW 604,700 of the above insurance proceeds, KRW 302,350, and delay damages.

Judgment

It is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendant vehicle attempted to change the lane from the fourth to the third lane only with the descriptions or images of the Gap evidence 1 to 5, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

Rather, according to the overall purport of each of the above evidence and evidence No. 2 as well as evidence No. 2, at the time of the instant accident, the Defendant’s vehicle was driving normally according to the three-lanes, but the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving in the two-lane next thereto was trying to change the two-lanes to three-lanes.