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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

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

B. On November 20, 2015, around 08:57, the Defendant’s vehicle driven along a two-lane road near the new forest path in Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, along the erostrostal distance. While driving along a two-lane line from the first lane to the second lane, the back and the pent part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s left side was shocked by the front line and the pent part of the Defendant’s vehicle.

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

On December 31, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,800,000 as the repair cost for the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 4, the purpose of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff asserts that, while the Plaintiff’s vehicle was in front of alight, the instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s failure to perform his duty of care for safe driving and that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed that the Plaintiff and the Defendant had a full negligence on the part of the driver of the Defendant vehicle, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the full amount of the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff and the damages for delay thereof as a reimbursement. 2) The Defendant asserts that the instant accident occurred due to the Plaintiff’s unilateral negligence due to the Plaintiff’s driver’s unilateral negligence when the Defendant’s vehicle is changing the lane.

B. In full view of the evidence presented in the judgment, the instant accident is a contact accident between the vehicles that occurred during the change of the vehicle line, and the Defendant’s negligence on the part of the Defendant’s driver who changed the vehicle line with due care without properly examining the behavior of driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle that was driven at the two-lanes is the main cause of the instant accident, but the Plaintiff’s vehicle is the Plaintiff’s vehicle.