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

B. On December 1, 2018, at around 20:26, the Defendant’s vehicle, who was in the vicinity of the Jung-gu Incheon Airport located in Jung-gu Incheon Airport, was under the sudden reduction of the lanes from the three lanes to the two lanes, while changing the lanes from the three lanes to the two lanes, and the Defendant’s vehicle shocked the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle that was in progress on the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle in the two lanes.

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

On January 25, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,780,000 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident (the self-charges of KRW 500,000) as insurance money.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant accident occurred in the course of seeking a change of the lane without verifying the Plaintiff’s vehicle. As such, the Defendant asserted that the fault ratio of the Defendant vehicle in the instant accident is 100%. 2) The Defendant asserts that the instant accident overlaps with the failure to yield the Plaintiff’s vehicle or the breach of duty at the time of front-handing and front-handing, and that the fault ratio of the Plaintiff vehicle is 30% in the instant accident.

나. 과실비율 위 인정사실과 앞서 든 증거에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 피고 차량의 블랙박스 영상에 의하면, 이 사건 사고 당시의 다른 소음은 모두 녹음이 되어 있음에도 불구하고 피고 차량의 깜빡이가 작동하는 소리는 녹음되어 있지 않은바, 피고 차량은 이 사건 사고 당시 깜빡이를 작동하지 않은 채 급하게 차선 변경을 시도한 것으로 보이는 점, 이 사건 사고 당시 원고...