A. The Plaintiff is the owner of a bus B (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is the driver of a private taxi (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. Around 13:50 on May 18, 2016, the Defendant driven the Defendant’s vehicle, driving the Defendant’s vehicle on the third-lane of the 3-lane of the 3-lane of the 3-lane of the 2nd line from the front of the 2nd line of the 2nd line to the 3rd line of the 3rd line of the 2nd line. Around changing the course to the 2nd line, the lower part of the Plaintiff’s right side of the 2nd line to the front part of the 2nd line of the

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

The Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to pay insurance proceeds on the ground that the instant accident sustained injury.

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant: (a) the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving along the Plaintiff’s two lanes; and (b) the Defendant’s vehicle was shocked by changing the course from the Plaintiff’s three lanes to the two lanes at the time prior to that of the vehicle; and (c) the Plaintiff’s driver was not negligent.

Nevertheless, the Defendant is dissatisfied with the purport that the Plaintiff is liable for damages, such as demanding the payment of insurance money, and thus, the Plaintiff is not liable for damages to the Defendant due to the instant accident.

B. The Defendant’s vehicle has set the direction toward the secondary lane before the Plaintiff’s vehicle passes through the Defendant’s vehicle, and the Plaintiff’s driver was negligent in proceeding with the Defendant’s vehicle despite having known that the vehicle would change the vehicle to the secondary lane. Therefore, the Plaintiff is liable to compensate for the Defendant’s damage caused by the instant accident.

3. Determination

A. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the video of No. 1, No. 2, and No. 1, the vehicle was parked on the third line on which the Defendant was running, but the instant accident occurred.