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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement with Csi (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurance company that entered into an insurance contract with respect to D Passenger Vehicles (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Vehicle”).

Plaintiff

On December 27, 2017, around 13:36 on December 27, 2017, one lane in front of the F cafeteria in Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, is visible from the 3rd parallel to the 4th parallel.

On the other hand, the vehicles were set at the two lanes adjacent to the plaintiff's vehicle, but the defendant's vehicle was changed from the three lanes to the two lanes, and the two lanes to the one in which the plaintiff's vehicle continued to run.

Plaintiff

The instant accident occurred where the front part of the front part of the vehicle and the front part of the Defendant vehicle, which entered one lane, conflict.

On March 28, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1320,000 to the Plaintiff’s automobile repair cost due to the instant accident in accordance with the said mutual aid agreement.

[Based on the basis of recognition] A-1-5 evidence, Eul-1-5 evidence, plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the entire pleadings, and the summary of the plaintiff's assertion as to the plaintiff's argument was proceeding in a normal manner by observing the speed limit, but the defendant's vehicle did not turn on the direction direction, etc. and entered the same lane. Thus, the accident of this case occurred since the defendant's vehicle was rapidly changed course and entered the same lane.

In such a situation, there is no negligence on the part of the Plaintiff’s driver, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the full amount of KRW 1320,000 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

Judgment

In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to readily conclude that the instant accident was force majeure to the Plaintiff’s driver, and it is reasonable to deem that the ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle’s fault is 20%: 80%.

이 사건 사고 당시 피고 차량은 왼쪽 방향지시등을 켠 채 진로를 변경하고 있었다.

Plaintiff

5. Vehicles: