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 entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with A and B automobiles (hereinafter “Plaintiff”). The Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with C dump trucks (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On September 5, 2014, around 19:50 on September 5, 2014, while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle and changing the lane from three lanes to two lanes on the street near Pyeongtaek-dong, there was an accident in which the part of the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle running a two-lane and the front part of the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle are contacted.

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

The Plaintiff spent KRW 1,263,00 on the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 7, Eul evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 2-4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred when the Plaintiff’s vehicle was trying to enter the three-lanes to two-lanes due to the vehicle’s straw, and was waiting for a stop without discovering the Plaintiff’s vehicle that was parked on the right side while leaving the two-lanes. As such, the Defendant’s vehicle’s liability ratio is 100%, and the Plaintiff acquired the right to indemnity against the money paid at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in accordance with the insurer’s subrogation doctrine against a third party as stipulated in Article 682 of the Commercial Act. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the indemnity amount of KRW 1,263,00 and damages for delay.

B. However, considering the above-mentioned contact level between the plaintiff's vehicle and the defendant's vehicle, it is difficult to recognize that the defendant's vehicle shocked the plaintiff's vehicle and carried it in the future. Rather, according to the screen image of the evidence No. 8 (accident video) of the defendant's vehicle, the defendant's vehicle turns in the two-lanes.