A. The Defendant is an insurance company that has concluded a motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to B-B cargo vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. Around 16:30 on July 19, 2017, the driver of the Defendant vehicle driven the Defendant vehicle, driving the two-lanes of the 2nd parallel line of the south Sea Highway, which is located in the 1st of Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City, along the two-lanes, and entering the two-lanes of the 18.5km, and changing the course from the four-lanes to the three-lanes of the Madon Road, the driver of the Defendant vehicle conflict with the other part behind the right side of the Defendant vehicle in the direction of the Defendant vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 2, 7 through 11, Eul 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings and the video and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above recognition of the liability for damages, the instant accident occurred by negligence on the part of the Defendant, who violated the duty of prohibition of career change by changing the course beyond the white straw line of two lines, which is the indication prohibiting career change. Thus, the Defendant, the insurance company of the Defendant, is liable for direct damages to the Plaintiff, the owner of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, pursuant to Article 10(1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act and Article 724(

B. The Defendant asserts that the instant accident constituted concurrent violations of the duty not to change the course of the Plaintiff vehicle, and thus, the Defendant’s liability should be limited in consideration of the negligence of the Plaintiff vehicle.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s vehicle changed the course in the zone subject to prohibition of career change. Rather, according to each of the above evidence, it is recognized that the lane between the four lanes and the three lanes that the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven is marked as a white line allowing career change, and otherwise, the Plaintiff’s vehicle is in the occurrence of the instant accident.