The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an individual automobile comprehensive insurance contract (hereinafter referred to as “instant insurance contract”) in attached Table 2 with respect to the passenger vehicle for B and C (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff vehicle”).

B. On April 21, 2015, at around 16:18, B driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and passed the Plaintiff’s boundary intersection in the Hodong-gu Hodong-dong in Ansan-si, along the two-lanes of the above road, from the bank in Seoul to the flood control area, the Defendant’s vehicle’s malfunction (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”), which was driving along the four-lanes, changed the two-lanes into the three-lanes, and did not find any way to turn to the left while changing the two-lanes into the two-lanes, and instead, the part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s right-hand side and the part of the Defendant’s right-hand side (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion is that the plaintiff's vehicle proceeds lawfully from the above two-lanes of the above road in accordance with the straight line at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at issue. The accident at issue occurred with the wind that the plaintiff's vehicle tried to turn to the left while changing the two-lanes from the four-lanes to the three-lanes for the purpose of left-hand turn to the left pursuant to the first letter of the first lane. The accident at issue occurred by the defendant's unilateral negligence and there was no negligence on the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle.

I would like to say.

Therefore, the plaintiff is not liable to pay damages to the defendant.

As such, the absence is confirmed.

B. Article 19(2) of the Road Traffic Act provides that the driver of any motor vehicle shall change the course of the motor vehicle.