Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

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

B. On October 9, 2019, around 19:38, the Plaintiff’s driver had been driving a two-lane road near the E-lane in the official city, and there was an accident that does not discover the Defendant’s vehicle running slowly in the front section and then shocks the front section.

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

On November 4, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 6,340,000 insurance money to the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. At the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant vehicle was running along the road along the access road, which is not the exit exit of the rest area, and entered the road to the extent that it could interfere with the driving of other vehicles, and the course of the Plaintiff vehicle was changed to the two lanes, and thus, the Plaintiff’s vehicle could not remarkably avoid this.

Therefore, the accident of this case is entirely caused by the negligence of the defendant vehicle (100%) and it should be deemed that there is no negligence of the plaintiff vehicle.

B. According to the above evidence and the video of Gap evidence No. 1, in particular, the accident site of this case was a two-lane road, and the plaintiff vehicle was a one-lane road. The defendant vehicle moved from the access road to the right side of the road to the direction of the rest area to the one-lane road, driving slowly, and changing the two-lane in almost right angles, and it was a conflict with the plaintiff vehicle that was going on the latter side of the one-lane road.

However, even based on the above black image, there was no other vehicle driving on the instant road at the time, and there was no reason to be an obstacle to the view of view, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was also able to take defensive measures by fully recognizing in advance that the Defendant’s vehicle runs.