2. Costs due to an appeal.

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

B. Around 08:00 on September 5, 2014, the driver of the Defendant vehicle driven the Defendant vehicle and driven along the five-lanes near the center site distance in Seongbuk-gu, Sungwon-si and changed the four-lanes into the four-lane, and the front side of the Plaintiff vehicle driven along the four-lanes in the front part of the driver’s seat of the Defendant vehicle.

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

On October 31, 2014, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 14,200,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

On June 30, 2015, the defendant succeeding intervenor succeeded to the rights and obligations of the defendant under the insurance contract after being transferred the insurance contract from the defendant pursuant to Article 146 (1) of the Insurance Business Act.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 8, Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle who changed the vehicle in the actual lane, which is a prohibited zone for the change of the vehicle, and that this accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle in this case, the defendant asserts that the driver of the vehicle in this case was negligent in neglecting the duty of safe driving even though he could be fully aware that the driver of the vehicle in this case could have attempted to change the vehicle in front of the vehicle in this case, and that the negligence ratio of the driver

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence revealed earlier, namely, the Defendant’s vehicle driven along the five-lane exclusive lanes prior to the right of way, and attempted to change the lanes from the real lanes where the change of the lanes is prohibited, to the four-lanes, and considering the initial shock level of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle.