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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has subscribed to the automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. On February 28, 2019, around 20:13, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven along the two-lanes from the two-lanes of E Apartment in Namyang-si, Namyang-si. However, the Defendant’s vehicle running along the first lane intended to change the course into a two-lane (hereinafter “the first shift”) and the Plaintiff’s vehicle moved to a three-lane expanded from the said point to avoid this. However, the Defendant’s vehicle continued to change the course from the second lane to the third lane, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle shocked the left-hand side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “the second change”).

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

On March 15, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,165,000 insurance money, excluding KRW 200,000 as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry and video of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 12 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant’s vehicle operated the right direction, etc. and changed the course at the beginning of the first month, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle changed to three lanes to avoid this. The instant accident occurred in the situation where the Defendant’s vehicle, which continuously changed its course, cannot avoid any more unreasonable change. As such, the instant accident occurred by the total negligence of Defendant’s vehicle.

B. Since the Defendant’s vehicle prior to the Defendant’s assertion was in operation of the direction direction, etc. at the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was extremely urgent and rapid at the three-lane without yield, even though it could have sufficiently known the change of the course of the Defendant’s vehicle.

Therefore, the plaintiff .