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. On July 20, 2015, the Defendant: (a) driven a Cbustering Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) on July 20, 2015; (b) proceeded in front of the road in Seogu-gu D from the south-gu IC bank to the long-speed distance outflow; and (c) changed from three lanes to two lanes, the Defendant stopped FK 7 (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”) running by the Plaintiff while driving the vehicle along two lanes in the same direction as the mast (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”); and (d) moved in the front part of the left part of the Defendant vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

The Plaintiff spent KRW 1,004,410 on the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 2, Gap evidence 1 and 5, Eul evidence 1 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The accident of this case, which caused the plaintiff, occurred in the course of making a left turn to the left, and the defendant is obligated to pay 970,000 won out of the repair cost of the plaintiff's vehicle 1,004,410 won and delay damages incurred by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case to the plaintiff.

3. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to each evidence, prior to the occurrence of liability for damages, the Defendant is found to have neglected the duty of due care to change the vehicle line when changing the vehicle line, while neglecting the duty of due care to change the traffic situation of the front and rear left, and changed the vehicle line rapidly from three lanes to two lanes left left at the intersection in order to obtain the left turn signal. The instant accident seems to have occurred due to the Defendant’s negligence.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred by the instant accident.

B. The following circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff’s vehicle proceeding with the second line, which was admitted by each evidence set forth prior to the limitation of liability for damages, are the second line by the Defendant vehicle prior to the third line.