Plaintiff

On December 24, 2016, around 15:10 on December 24, 2016, vehicles stopped in red signals from the two-lanes of the road in front of the Mandong, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, the signal was changed to a green, and the vehicle of the defendant began to go straight straightly between the two-lanes of the above road and the three-lanes. The two-lanes of the driver's seat of the vehicle of the defendant and the first half of the plaintiff vehicle conflict with each other.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). On January 25, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,160,000 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident (the exemption amount of KRW 200,000) as insurance proceeds.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 6's statements, Gap evidence 2, 4, 6's evidences, Eul evidence 1's images and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s vehicle driver trusted that the Defendant’s vehicle would change its course into a three-lane and proceed normally at a two-lane. The Defendant’s vehicle could not avoid the Defendant’s vehicle because the instant accident occurred with the wind to change its course into a two-lane.

In addition, since the plaintiff's vehicle and the defendant's vehicle are almost signaled on the same line, the plaintiff's vehicle cannot be viewed as a vehicle behind the vehicle, and there is no duty to ensure safety distance to the driver of the plaintiff vehicle.

Therefore, the accident of this case is caused by the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle who rapidly changed the course.

B. The Defendant’s vehicle immediately before the instant accident is asserted is signaled in the direction of two lanes from three lanes to two lanes.