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

B. At around 15:30 on October 30, 2016, the Defendant vehicle turned the three-lanes in front of the Daju station in Osan City, along the two-lanes, and attempted to change the lanes into the three-lanes to enter the said stations.

The side part of the plaintiff's driver's seat, which was sent in three-lanes of the same direction, was shocked by the front side of the defendant's driver's seat.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On December 30, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,507,839 insurance money at the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, video, purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case occurred by the whole negligence of the defendant's vehicle, and the defendant asserts that there was negligence on the part of the plaintiff's vehicle, which neglected to perform the duty of over-speed and pre-delivery, and that its ratio is at least 30%.

B. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged as being comprehensively taken into account the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence (in particular, evidence evidence evidence evidence No. 7) as seen earlier, namely, ① the Plaintiff’s vehicle was going straight ahead at the time of the instant accident; ② the Defendant’s vehicle, while the Plaintiff’s front of the instant accident, changed the vehicle to the three-lane one in which the Plaintiff’s own vehicle was driving on the right-hand right-hand right-hand road; ③ the Defendant’s vehicle appears to have attempted to change the vehicle; ④ the Defendant’s vehicle appears to have failed to turn on the direction while attempting to change the vehicle; ④ the Defendant’s vehicle appears to have changed the vehicle immediately before the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and ④ the Plaintiff’s vehicle might not have had sufficient time to avoid collision with the Plaintiff’s vehicle; ⑤ the Plaintiff’s vehicle was bound by the Plaintiff vehicle.

1.2.2.