1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

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

B. Around 10:20 on March 30, 2015, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and driven along the two lanes near the new funeral distance in the direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the front entrance of the Defendant’s vehicle driven along the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was shocked with the front front part of the Plaintiff’s driver’s seat.

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

On May 22, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,869,000 with the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry or video of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and 5, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle who attempted to change the lane from the first lane to the second lane without viewing the plaintiff vehicle in the blind spot on the left side of the entrance of the defendant vehicle and without operating the direction light.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the defendant's vehicle at the time of the accident in this case was in front of the plaintiff's vehicle, so that the defendant's vehicle at the time of the accident in this case had attempted to change the two lanes from the two lanes to the one, and that the driver

B. In other words, at the time of the instant accident, the Defendant’s vehicle appears to have driven along one lane and attempted to change the lane in front of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in front of the two-lane. However, the Plaintiff’s vehicle seems to have rapidly changed the direction from the two-lane to the one-lane, and the Plaintiff’s driver’s position.