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

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to the automobile C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), with respect to the automobile D (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

나. 원고 차량 운전자는 2018. 11. 4. 17:00경 경기 용인시 처인구 E 근처 편도 2차로 중 1차로로 진행하다가 ‘ㅏ’자형 교차로에 이르러 우측 소로로 진입하기 위하여 2차로로 차로를 변경하던 중, 원고 차량 뒤에서 진행하다가 2차로로 차로를 변경하여 직진하던 피고차량의 좌측면 부분을 원고 차량의 우측 앞부분으로 충격하였다

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

On November 28, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,857,440 as insurance money, such as repair cost, to the Plaintiff’s vehicle insured.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 4, 6 through 8, Eul evidence 2 through 9 (including each number), the video and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. On the other hand, the Defendant asserts that the instant accident occurred due to the overall negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle violating the method of career change, and that the rate of negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle should be limited to 30% since the Plaintiff’s negligence, such as the Plaintiff’s failure to perform the duty of front-time watch on the part of the Defendant’s vehicle, etc., was concurrently caused by the Plaintiff’s negligence. However, the Defendant asserts that the instant accident occurred due

B. According to the above facts and the evidence as seen earlier, if the accident in this case tried to proceed into a one-lane road on the two-lane road and enter a two-lane crossing, the direction, etc. should turn on in advance, and if it is necessary to safely check the progress of the vehicle by returning a slider or a direct string, it is necessary to safely check the progress of the vehicle, but only the negligence of the Plaintiff’s own vehicle changing the lane without taking such measures.