1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to the automobile C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), with respect to the automobile D (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. Around 13:40 on April 13, 2016, the Plaintiff’s driver changed the course from four lanes to three lanes in front of the Hocheon-dong, Nam-gu, Namcheon-gu, Gwangju, and shocked with the Defendant’s vehicle in the three-lane. The shocked the Plaintiff’s vehicle while driving the two-lane (hereinafter “victim’s vehicle”).

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

By May 30, 2016, the Plaintiff paid the total of KRW 1,143,560 for the medical expenses for drivers of damaged vehicles and the agreed amount, and KRW 267,190 for each insurance money.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the accident of this case is deemed to have been caused by the negligence of the plaintiff vehicle, which changed the course from four lanes to three lanes without properly examining the movement of the plaintiff vehicle, which is a subsequent vehicle, and the negligence of the defendant vehicle, which failed to properly examine the movement of the plaintiff vehicle, which is a prior vehicle, due to neglecting the duty of front-time care. In light of the occurrence of the accident of this case and the background leading up to the occurrence of the accident of this case and the situation leading up to the collision of the plaintiff and the defendant vehicle, it is reasonable to view that the negligence ratio is 80% of the plaintiff vehicle and

Therefore, the Defendant exempted the Defendant from liability for damages sustained by the driver of the damaged vehicle and the passenger (i.e., KRW 1,143,560, KRW 267,190) as insurance money, and (ii) KRW 282,150, which correspond to the fault ratio of the Defendant’s vehicle among KRW 1,410,750 (= KRW 1,410,750 x 20%) as well as the Defendant’s obligation for performance from May 31, 2016, which is the day following the Plaintiff’s insurance money payment date.