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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. With respect to C E220D vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to D S-T vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. Around 18:40 on December 9, 2018, in the vicinity of the access road to the F station in the five-lane E-do located at the P station, an accident occurred that conflict with the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the Defendant’s vehicle driving the three-lane, changing the three-lane to enter the station as above, while changing the five-lane.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On January 2, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 21,620,00 (excluding self-paid KRW 500,000) for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and Eul evidence No. 1 (including virtual numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant accident occurred from a three-lane road to a gas station due to the unilateral negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which violated the duty of minimum speed and safe driving on the road. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the reimbursement amount of KRW 21,620,000 and the damages for delay.

B. According to the above facts of recognition and the evidence mentioned above, the driver of the Defendant vehicle has a duty of care to safely change the lane after checking whether there is a concern about impeding the normal passage of other vehicles running in the direction of the vehicle when intending to change the course of the vehicle, but the driver of the Defendant vehicle has entered the three-lanes where the driver of the vehicle was driving in order to leave the vehicle as a gas station by neglecting it, and entered the five-lanes by driving in the three-lanes where the driver was driving in order to leave the vehicle as a gas station, and ultimately, it is determined that

On the other hand, since the driver of the defendant vehicle has changed the lane at a slow speed while operating the direction straw, the driver of the plaintiff vehicle who followed the vehicle is the defendant vehicle.