1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is a traffic police officer who has sent water to A at the accident site as seen below.

B. On April 15, 2017, around 07:10, the Plaintiff’s vehicle conflict with C Buses that is proceeding in the two-lane, while changing the vehicle from three-lanes to one-lanes of the three-lanes on the roads located in Busan Sho-gu, Busan, according to the traffic police officer’s receipt of the traffic police officer’s drinking control.

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

On May 23, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,873,510 in total to the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the medical expenses of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driver, etc. as insurance proceeds.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3, or the purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred was sent to the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which the Defendant’s traffic police officer proceeded with a three-lane, and accordingly, it appears that the Plaintiff’s vehicle changed the bus line and went into the two-lane. The Defendant is liable for damages to the owner of the Plaintiff’s vehicle pursuant to Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act, and the Defendant is liable for damages to the Plaintiff’s owner, and the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff’s insurance proceeds of KRW 2,873,510 and damages for delay.

B. In light of the developments leading up to the occurrence of the instant accident and the location of each vehicle and the degree of collision, which can be seen by the evidence as seen earlier, the driver of the Plaintiff vehicle used the number signal of the police officer, but the police officer did not give any specific number of signals to other driving directions, so it was possible for the other vehicle to be in a situation at which the normal driving of the vehicle on the other driving direction could be anticipated, even if the vehicle on the other driving route was completely changed without examining the movement of the other vehicle.