A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”). The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. Around 08:00 on November 29, 2018, the Defendant’s vehicle driven along the first lane at the vicinity of the Suwon-dong Suwon-dong Suwon-dong Suwon-dong Suwon-do Suwon-si, and had changed the course to enter the right expressway, and the part of the Plaintiff’s left front part of the vehicle, which entered two lanes depending on the same direction, was shocked with the front part of the Defendant’s right side.

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

On December 20, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 924,000 after deducting KRW 396,000 of the self-paid cost for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's right to indemnity

(a) Where a driver of any motor vehicle intends to change course and it is likely to impede normal traffic of other motor vehicles running in the direction to which he/she intends to change, he/she shall not change course (Article 19 (3) of the Road Traffic Act), and where intending to change course while driving in the same direction, he/she shall make a signal with his/her hand, direction indicator or light until such act ends;

(Article 38(1)(b) of the same Act.

In other words, the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle violates the duty of safe driving under the Road Traffic Act, such as running at a rapid speed on the rear side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and changing the course immediately in the future of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, who is the driver of the vehicle, is the Defendant’s vehicle.