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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

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

B. Around 15:20 on December 20, 2014, the Defendant vehicle opened the Han River Station located in the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government from the northwest to the south part of the south part of the river, and changed the lane to the left part of the road in order to proceed to the upper part of the road tunnel.

At that time, in order to change the way to the left side of the vehicle into the left side, the Plaintiff vehicle was temporarily in a temporary stop due to the front body of the vehicle located on the left side, and the Defendant vehicle was overtaking the Plaintiff vehicle on the left side of the vehicle. The Plaintiff vehicle, which was behind the Defendant vehicle, was changed to the left side, and the part of the front body of the Plaintiff vehicle, which conflict with the front body of the Plaintiff vehicle.

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

After paying KRW 1,485,00 at the repair cost of the Defendant’s vehicle, the Defendant filed a petition with the Plaintiff for deliberation to seek payment of KRW 1,485,00,00 with the 1,485,00, and the 80% of the fault ratio on July 20, 2015, the 80% of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was deemed as 20% of the Defendant’s vehicle, and the 1,188,000 won was decided on September 14, 2015.

On October 8, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,188,000 to the Defendant according to the aforementioned deliberation and resolution.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 8, Eul evidence 1 to 6, video (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the accident of this case occurred due to the former negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle who attempted to drive the plaintiff's vehicle after overtaking the plaintiff's vehicle, and thus the plaintiff's vehicle should be exempted from liability.