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 A and B B (2016 type, hereinafter “Plaintiff-motor vehicle”) with respect to a vehicle owned by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to a vehicle chartered (hereinafter “Defendant-motor vehicle”).

B. Around 17:30 on November 10, 2016, the driver of the Defendant vehicle driven the Defendant vehicle and driven along the Defendant vehicle to the Incheon bank according to the two-lanes among the three-lanes in the Gangseo-si, Young-si, Young-si, Seog-si, Seog-si, Incheon. The driver of the Defendant vehicle changed the lane to the one-lanes of the Plaintiff vehicle while driving along the two-lanes of the two-lanes in the west-si, Young-si, Young-si, the driver of the Defendant vehicle changed the lane to the one-lanes of the Plaintiff vehicle. Accordingly, the Plaintiff vehicle driven the back part of the driver’s seat on the

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

On December 14, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 11,640,00 as the repair cost for the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence and scope of liability for damages.

A. The following circumstances are that the place where the instant accident occurred is inside the tunnel where the alteration of lanes is prohibited, and the damaged part of the Defendant’s vehicle is the front fronter part of the driver’s seat and the damaged part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle is the fronter, immediately immediately after the Defendant’s vehicle’s change was completed before or after the change of lanes was completed, the Plaintiff appears to have attempted to change the lanes in the vicinity of the Defendant’s vehicle. As such, the three-lanes of the tunnel where the instant accident occurred were closed due to repair works, etc., and the three-lanes of the tunnel where the Defendant’s vehicle was in the vicinity of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. However, even though the three-lanes of the tunnel where the instant accident occurred, the PE protection facilities were placed along the two-lanes.