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

B. On March 4, 2017, around 13:18, in Jinju-si, there was a traffic accident where the front part of the right side of the Defendant vehicle, which changed the lane rapidly from the one lane to the two lanes on the road near Jinju-si, Jinin-si, and the front part of the Plaintiff vehicle, which is proceeding the two lanes on the two lanes of the above road, is facing one another.

C. On August 23, 2017, the Plaintiff, as the insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, paid KRW 220,000 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1, 4, and 5 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Article 19(3) of the Road Traffic Act provides that “The driver of any motor vehicle shall not change course when it is likely to impede normal traffic of other motor vehicles running in the direction to which the driver intends to change course of the motor vehicle.”

In light of the above provisions, in full view of the developments leading up to the occurrence of the above traffic accident, the location of the original and the defendant vehicle at the time of the accident, and the parts leading up to the collision, etc., the driver of the defendant vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the above traffic accident is trying to change the vehicle from the first to the second two-lane of the above road, and thus, if it is likely to obstruct the normal passage of other vehicles by properly examining the speed and distance between other vehicles driving the two-lane of the above road, the driver of the defendant vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the traffic accident is deemed to have caused the above traffic accident by neglecting the duty of care not to change the course, while neglecting the duty of care not to change the course, and changing the vehicle to the two-lane of the plaintiff vehicle near the defendant vehicle.

Therefore, above.