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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who runs an insurance business, such as the comprehensive automobile insurance business, and entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract for B vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicles”), and the Defendant is the driver of C vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

B. On December 24, 2015, around 19:35, the Defendant, while proceeding along the first line among the two-lanes of the intersection in the direction of the entrance distance of the Cheongpyeong-ri, Gyeonggi-gu, Cheongpyeong-gu, Cheongpyeong-gu, Gyeonggi-do, the Defendant changed the two-lanes to a second line in order to make a right-hand way from the above three-lanes, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven along the second line of the said Madang City (hereinafter “instant accident”) led to a traffic accident in which the Plaintiff driven the Defendant’s vehicle.

C. By February 3, 2016, the Plaintiff, as an insurer, paid the insurance proceeds of KRW 6,885,000 in total to the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s total negligence, which caused the instant accident, while the Defendant was driving in the second line from the section where the change of the vehicle was prohibited to the second line to the second line, which caused the instant accident to be unduly changed to the first line. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff’s vehicle that is the victim of the instant accident.

The plaintiff exempted the defendant by compensating the victim for damages, so the defendant asserts that the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the total amount of the insurance money paid and the damages for delay.

In this regard, the Defendant did not turn on the vehicle instructions, etc. in the section prohibited from changing the lanes, but on the other hand, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was also at the speed immediately before the accident, and the instant accident occurred while changing the tea line, and thus, the Plaintiff’s vehicle is also liable to the extent of 40%.

B. In full view of the above facts of recognition as above, the instant accident is unreasonable in the section where the change in the tea line is prohibited.