2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded each comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the Plaintiff Company A (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff Company”), with respect to the Plaintiff Company B (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Company”).

B. On October 9, 2014, C driving the Defendant vehicle at around 12:25, and driving the vehicle into one lane, which is the one lane near the Central Highway Bridge, and D driving the Plaintiff vehicle, driving the vehicle into one lane behind the Defendant vehicle.

C. The Defendant’s vehicle found a non-motor vehicle stopped on the front side of the said lower drive, and attempted to change the two-lanes into a two-lane, but the vehicle was stopped in the separation of the lanes. However, the Plaintiff’s vehicle did not avoid it without completely changing the Defendant’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s front side without changing it.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). D.

From October 31, 2014 to November 17, 2015, the Plaintiff paid the insurance premium of KRW 316,690, and KRW 1,782,650 from October 13, 2014 to November 4, 2014 to E, who was the winner of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, with medical expenses, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries and images of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was proceeding at the back of the wind where the Defendant vehicle was trying to change his own car line, was presumed to have concealed the Defendant vehicle and the driver’s negligence is recognized, and the fault ratio is 30%.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the amount equivalent to the ratio of negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle and the delay damages.

B. The main point of the Defendant’s assertion is that the Plaintiff’s vehicle neglected its duty to ensure safety distance and was driven on the front section by driving the Defendant vehicle.