1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The following facts of recognition may be acknowledged either in dispute between the parties or in combination with the whole purport of the pleadings on the entries and videos set forth in Gap evidence 1 to 6:

The plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automatic insurance contract for the vehicle A (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff vehicle") with respect to the vehicle B (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant vehicle").

B. On April 25, 2016, at around 10:15, the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the first lane from the west of Mapo-gu Office to the sloping to the left-hand turn, depending on the first two-lanes of the three-lanes of the three-lanes of the roads near the World Cup stadium, Mapo-gu, Seoul. At the time, the Defendant’s vehicle changed the said intersection to the second two-lanes of the vehicle immediately after the right-hand from the west of the World Cup to the sloping intersection to the sloping of the Defendant’s left-hand side, and the upper part of the front part of the Plaintiff’s right-hand side was shocked with the front part of the Defendant’s left-hand side.

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

On May 2, 2016, the Plaintiff paid the insurance money of KRW 2,750,00 (the self-paid 500,000) as the repair cost for the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case was caused by the negligence on the whole part of the defendant vehicle immediately entering the three-lane road, by neglecting the duty to keep the vehicle left at the left under the new subparagraph, while neglecting the duty to keep the vehicle at the front place, and making the vehicle at the right of priority by making the vehicle at the right of way without yielding the course to the plaintiff vehicle.

The defendant, at the time of the accident of this case, had been trying to change the vehicle at one-lane due to the body of the vehicle after the completion of the normal right of way, and even if the plaintiff's vehicle could fully recognize this situation, he neglected the duty of safe driving to avoid shock with the defendant vehicle.