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

B. On July 31, 2014, around 17:25, the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle driven one lane in the middle of the two-lanes located in Pyeongtaek-gu, Gyeonggi-gu, Gyeonggi-do, and changed the two-lanes, the driver shocked the left side part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle running into two-lanes in the same direction as the end of the end of the vehicle while changing the two-lanes. Accordingly, as the Plaintiff’s vehicle proceeds in one-lane due to the shock, the Defendant’s vehicle re-satisfed the part of the Plaintiff’s driver’s seat as the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s vehicle shocked the Plaintiff’s seat near the center line.

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

By July 21, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 11,022,389 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle by July 21, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3, or the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances, which can be seen based on the above facts admitted and the evidence revealed, the Defendant vehicle runs in one-lane.

In light of the progress direction after the shock of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the instant accident was caused by the negligence of the Plaintiff’s driver and the Defendant’s driver when considering the circumstances of the instant accident and the injury level and degree of the Defendant’s vehicle, etc., it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle are concurrent with each other, in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle are aware of the change of the vehicle line while driving without reducing the speed; and (b) it is reasonable to deem that the instant accident was caused by the negligence of the Plaintiff’s driver and the Defendant’s vehicle.

In this respect, the plaintiff's non-performance assertion.