1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

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

B. On January 30, 2016, at around 18:30, the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the industrial tower intersection located in Ulsan-gu along the two lanes from the boundary of the intersection, and then intends to change the two lanes from the two lanes to the four lanes in order to leave the intersection. On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s vehicle conflict with the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle with the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle, which entered the two lanes to the two lanes, and attempted to turn back along the four lanes as they are, while moving into the said intersection.

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

On February 24, 2015, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 992,00 to the repair cost, etc. for the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Gap evidence Nos. 6 through 10, Eul evidence No. 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the shock of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which is driven by the Defendant’s vehicle under the direction of the vehicle moving along the vehicle moving along the vehicle moving along the vehicle moving along the direction of the vehicle in order to get out of the vehicle moving along the direction of the vehicle moving along with the speed of the vehicle moving along with the speed of the vehicle moving along the direction of the vehicle. It was caused by 10

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 92,000 won and damages for delay paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff.

B. As the Plaintiff’s vehicle seeking to be absent from the one-time intersection, it has a duty of care to change the course without impeding the normal progress of other vehicles by examining well whether there is a vehicle coming from the outer lane while attempting to change the vehicle from the outer lane to the outer lane.

Nevertheless, the Plaintiff’s vehicle neglected this and changed its course.

On the other hand, the defendant's vehicle that intends to continue driving along the vehicle line outside of the intersection line is inside the vehicle line.