A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid operator who has entered into an automobile mutual aid contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On June 30, 2016, around 19:55, the Plaintiff’s vehicle proceeded along the three-lanes of the 4 lane of the 4 lane adjacent to the intersection of the Giuri apartment located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, and attempted to change the 329 lane into the 4 lane. Nonparty C, who was the Defendant’s passenger, was injured by Nonparty C, who was the Defendant’s passenger on the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, was found to have changed the 4 lane from the 1 lane to the 2 lane. The Defendant’s vehicle, who was proceeding on the 2 lane thereafter, did not avoid it, was found to have changed the 4 lane from the 1 lane to the 2 lane.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On July 5, 2016, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 650,000 in total with C’s medical expenses, etc.

[Ground of recognition] The descriptions and images of Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In light of the above basic facts, the accident of this case was caused by the principal fault of the Defendant vehicle, which was shocked, while driving the vehicle without properly examining the Plaintiff’s attitude that was driven in the front room.

On the other hand, the driver of any motor vehicle shall not change course when it is likely to impede the normal traffic of other motor vehicles running in the direction to which he/she intends to change course (Article 19(3) of the Road Traffic Act). Therefore, the vehicle seeking to change the intersection line has a duty of care not to impede the traffic of other motor vehicles running in accordance with the signals of signal apparatus, and all drivers of all motor vehicles are required to prevent danger.