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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On June 3, 2014, at around 12:15, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was damaged by the damaged vehicle and the Plaintiff’s vehicle, following the Da, E, and F, who was aboard the damaged vehicle while driving in the two-lane road in front of the entrance of the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government retirement tunnel (hereinafter “victim”).

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

By August 29, 2014, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 3,546,80 in total with D, E, and F’s treatment costs and agreed amount, and the repair cost of damaged vehicles and Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to a sudden stop of the damaged vehicle on the wind that the Defendant’s vehicle has changed from one’s own three lanes to another, and thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate for all damages incurred therefrom.

3. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the images of Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 1, and 2 (including virtual numbers), it can be recognized that the defendant vehicle changed the two lanes to a two-lane in order to overtake a taxi parked in the front line while driving the three-lane. The damaged vehicle driver discovered and immediately operated the defendant vehicle, the damaged vehicle and the defendant vehicle are not faced with each other; the damaged vehicle and the damaged vehicle are not faced with each other; and the plaintiff vehicle concealed the damaged vehicle one to two seconds after the time the damaged vehicle stops. According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to deem that the accident in this case occurred by the whole negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle while neglecting the front line and securing the safety distance without neglecting the safety distance. Even if the defendant vehicle is negligent, there is any negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle.