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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to B-Vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”).

B. On December 26, 2014, at around 15:07, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven along the two lanes of the four-lane road located in Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Yang Jae-gu, and changed the three-lane, the lower part of the Defendant’s C vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”)’s left side of the Defendant’s vehicle, which changed the three-lane to the three-lane, turned into the front side of the Plaintiff’s right side of the vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On January 13, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,948,00 as the repair cost for the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence A, Evidence B Nos. 1 through 6, Evidence B Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant vehicle's change from the four lanes to the three lanes, caused the accident of this case by shocking the plaintiff vehicle that changed the two lanes from the two lanes in the front direction to the three lanes, and that the above ratio of the negligence ratio of the defendant vehicle at least 60% is 60%. Thus, the defendant is obliged to pay 3,568,800 won, which is equivalent to 60% of the negligence ratio of the defendant vehicle among the above insurance money's 5,948,000 won, and damages for delay.

In regard to this, the defendant, since the plaintiff vehicle attempted to change the lane and completed the change of the lane into a three-lane, the defendant vehicle shows that there was no error in relation to the accident in this case.

B. In light of the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, the instant accident appears to have occurred due to the negligence of both parties while changing the lane from the two lanes to the three lanes, respectively, on the part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and neglecting their duty of safe driving. The shock of both vehicles is the shock of the two vehicles.