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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the vehicle C owned by B (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the driver of the vehicle E (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. Around 12:00 on September 13, 2013, while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle and driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle into three-lanes of the six-lane road in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, along with six-lanes of the 218-1, the two-lanes of the square, the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle in the same direction and the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle were in conflict.

(hereinafter referred to as "the accident of this case". (c)

On October 31, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 8,500,000,000, which deducts the insured self-paid amount of KRW 500,000 from the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle from KRW 9,000.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, part of Gap evidence Nos. 1, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 7, Eul evidence No. 1 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. As to the circumstances surrounding the allegations by the parties, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant accident conflicts with the Plaintiff’s vehicle that the Defendant, who driven along the four-lanes, tried to change the course into the three-lane one, and that there was a more gross negligence on the part of the Defendant who attempted to change the lane. On the other hand, the Defendant changed the lanes to four-lanes in order to report the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving along the three-lanes and to yield the course of driving at a rapid speed. However, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was changing to the four-lanes in order to yield the course of driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle at a rapid speed, but the Plaintiff’s vehicle fell into the Defendant’s vehicle without a speed reduction, and thus, the Plaintiff’s previous negligence on the part of the Plaintiff.

B. Therefore, the Plaintiff and the Defendant appear to have been in contact with each other on the three-lanes of the two vehicles, and considering the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence as seen earlier, the Defendant appears to have no dispute.