2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. With respect to A QM3 Vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), the Defendant is an insurer who concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to B Sti Vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicles”).

B. On November 10, 2016, the Defendant’s vehicle driven the outer cycle road located in Gyeyang-gu Seoul Metropolitan City along the three-lane from the IC to the 4-lane from the IC due to the unification of the outer cycle road located in Goyang-gu, Yangyang-si, Seoyang-si, and shocked the back of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which is the preceding vehicle, while driving along the three-lane from the IC to the

(hereinafter “instant traffic accident”). C.

On December 2, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,071,980 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle as the insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Article 19(1) of the Road Traffic Act provides that “If the driver of any motor vehicle follows another motor vehicle traveling in the same direction, the motor vehicle traveling behind the motor vehicle traveling in the same direction shall maintain a necessary distance to avoid any collision with the motor vehicle traveling ahead of it where the latter stops suddenly.”

In light of the above provisions, according to the above facts and the evidence revealed earlier, the driver of the Defendant vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the instant traffic accident is deemed to have caused the instant traffic accident which causes the collision of the Plaintiff vehicle, which is the front vehicle, by neglecting his duty of care to ensure safety distance in order to avoid collision with the front vehicle, even though he had a duty of care to view the front vehicle.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the traffic accident of this case occurred due to the change of the sudden car car car car.

However, according to the above evidence, prior to the shock of the plaintiff's vehicle, the plaintiff's vehicle had already been running the three-way vehicle while the change of the vehicle was completed, not only by video at the time.