Of the judgment of the first instance, the Plaintiff’s KRW 1,749,600 against the Defendant and its related amount from December 12, 2019 to February 17, 2021.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a commercial operator who entered into an upper agreement with C individual taxi (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to D vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On November 22, 2019, around 18:00, the Plaintiff’s vehicle proceeded along a two-lane between the two-lanes in the direction of the direction of the direction of the tunnel in the direction of the road in the vicinity of the F in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, and the two-lanes were changed to the three-lanes, and the Plaintiff’s right side was in conflict with the Defendant’s top-hander prior to the right side of the right side of the vehicle, while passing through the intersection in accordance with the straight line. (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

On December 11, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,187,000 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy facts, Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap evidence 6 and 7, Eul evidence 2 to 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the purport of the above recognition of the negligence ratio and the alteration theory, the instant accident occurred due to the main fault of the Defendant vehicle, which did not perform the duty of care not to obstruct the operation of the vehicles directly engaged in traffic under the traffic signals in the front, rear, left, and surrounding traffic conditions in the course of bypassing to enter the road from the road.

However, if the driver of the plaintiff vehicle has also been in the vicinity of the intersection and has fulfilled the duty of the front line in the course of changing the vehicle from the two lanes to the three-lane, the driver was negligent in failing to perform the duty of safety care to avoid the accident by lowering the speed, attracting the attention of the driver of the defendant vehicle, etc., even though he could have been aware of the attempt to enter the defendant vehicle in the front line.

The occurrence of the accident in this case and the current status of the road, the degree of each driver's violation of the duty of care, the degree of collision, and the degree of damage.