A. On December 5, 2014, B, while driving C vehicles at around 05:20 on December 5, 2014 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”), caused an accident in which: (a) the front part of the DPoter vehicle of the Plaintiff’s driving (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) going into three-lanes in the process of changing the lane from the upstream of the economic promotion center located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu along the two-lanes to the filial length distance from the upstream of the road; and (b) the vehicle turned into three-lanes in the same direction (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. The Plaintiff suffered injuries, such as the so-called saves and saves on both sides, the upper right saves, etc., due to the instant accident.

C. The defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with B as to the defendant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1 to 4, 13 evidence (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of and limitation on liability for damages;

A. According to the above fact of recognition that the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence of B, the defendant, who is the insurer of the defendant's vehicle driving by B, is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damage suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.

B. Limit of liability: (a) the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was proceeding on the rear side, was negligent in failing to find out the change of the previous vehicle despite the duty of care to drive while considering the traffic conditions on the rear side; and (b) such negligence of the Plaintiff became the cause of damage caused by the instant accident.

Therefore, the defendant's liability ratio is limited to 80% in consideration of the degree of negligence of the plaintiff.

In this regard, the defendant is not an accident during the change of the vehicle, but the defendant's vehicle is proceeding after the change of the vehicle.