구상금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
The purport and purport of the appeal [the purport of the appeal]
1. The circumstances leading up to the instant accident are as follows.
On December 24, 2019, when the insured vehicle C (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”) of the Plaintiff insured vehicle C (including the time when the driver referred to as “the insured vehicle”), and around December 24, 2019, at the time of the accident, the Defendant vehicle was proceeding in the direction of the accident site in the direction of the accident site in the direction of the vehicle in question, using eight lanes after the righting. However, the Plaintiff vehicle driving in the direction of the vehicle in the direction of the main construction distance of the server in the G-cheon Terminal, attempted to change its course into the eight lanes before the accident site, and there was no dispute over the payment of the insurance proceeds paid by the Plaintiff vehicle in the amount of the insurance proceeds paid by the Plaintiff vehicle in the collision between the Plaintiff vehicle and the Defendant vehicle in the front direction of the vehicle in question, with the payment of insurance proceeds paid by the Plaintiff vehicle in the front line of the insurance proceeds paid by the Plaintiff vehicle in KRW 6,180,000,00 for self-liability loss of the vehicle in question.
2. Determination
A. The gist of the parties' assertion (1) is that the plaintiff vehicle was negligent in changing the course; however, the plaintiff vehicle seems to have immediately been bypassing the course at the point where the right side is connected with each other, and in fact, it was made by changing the course from seven lanes to eight lanes, and the defendant vehicle was at least 30% of the negligence in violation of the duty of the front side, and was the cause of the accident in this case.
(2) After the Defendant’s vehicle moved straight to the direction of the accident site of this case, the Defendant vehicle was anticipated to thoroughly move to the front direction of the accident site of this case, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was anticipated to move to seven lanes after the U.S. in line with the flow of traffic. However, the Defendant vehicle did not turn to the direction direction direction direction, etc. to enter the entrance of an apartment, which is a small road, and was rapidly changed to eight lanes, and thus, it could not avoid this.
(b) judgment (1).