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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The Plaintiff is an insurance company that has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to C Passenger Vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to D Bus (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. On June 17, 2018, around 16:00, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle tried to change the two lanes by overtaking the Defendant’s vehicle, which had different two lanes from the first lane, at the point in front of 35 meters, in order to go away from the 102.1km away from the upper parallel of the land-to-land expressway in the middle-to-land of Scong-ri, Seocheon-ri. In order to go away from the 102.1km, the driver tried to change the two lanes.

C. The Defendant’s driver, while reporting that the Plaintiff’s vehicle attempted to change the lane into a two-lane, did not take necessary measures such as speed reduction in order to ensure safety distance.

At that time, while the driver of the plaintiff vehicle completed the change of the lane into the two-lanes, the driver of the defendant vehicle did not avoid it, and the driver of the defendant vehicle did not receive it, and the victim E received the rear part of the plaintiff vehicle from the front part of the defendant vehicle and was on board the plaintiff vehicle for about six weeks for medical treatment.

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

Based on the above automobile insurance, the Plaintiff paid KRW 9,865,650 to the victim for medical treatment and agreement.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6, Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the fact of recognition of the responsibility, the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle showed that the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle tried to change the two lanes in front of 35 meters in front of the frontline, and thus, the Defendant’s driver was obliged to take necessary measures, such as speed reduction, in order to ensure safety distance in advance, taking into account the speed limit of 100km/h on the expressway, and to prevent the accident

Nevertheless, the defendant.