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

B. On December 9, 2013, around 08:25, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle to enter the intersection of the industrial tower located in the south-gu New-dong, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-do along the four-lane two-lanes in front of the industrial tower, where the other side of the Defendant’s vehicle, driving the five-lane in the same direction as the end of the river basin, and driving the vehicle along the four-lanes, and the other side of the Defendant’s vehicle driving along the lane in the direction of the direction of the road located in the direction of the road located in the direction of the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

The lateral road of the point where the accident in this case occurred is the 5-lane road, and the 1,2-line one of them is the lateral road, and the lateral line is the lateral one, and the lateral one is the lateral one connected to the lateral one, which is the lateral one, and the lateral one connected to the right-hand one. The 4,5-line is the lateral one connected to the right-hand one.

On November 20, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,576,000 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle as insurance money.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3, or the purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the accident in this case occurred while the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle normally proceeds along the vehicle's main line on the fourth line, while the defendant's vehicle was causing the change of the vehicle's vehicle in the direction of the two-lanes in the direction of the two-lanes from the plaintiff's rear side to the five-lane side. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that there is no negligence. On the other hand, the defendant moved into the right side of the plaintiff's vehicle without examining the front, rear and left side.