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. Facts of recognition;

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

B. Around 22:00 on December 16, 2016, the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped on the two-lanes in front of the D hotel located in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul. The Defendant’s vehicle, while driving the three-lanes of the above road and changing the two-lanes into the two-lanes, the vehicle left behind the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, with the front side of the right side of the Plaintiff’s right side.

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

On March 15, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 812,200 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, 6 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the accident of this case occurred while the defendant vehicle changed the lane in the situation where the plaintiff vehicle stops. The plaintiff asserts that the responsibility of the accident of this case is entirely against the defendant vehicle.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the negligence of the plaintiff vehicle who violated the duty of safe driving should be reflected in the future although the plaintiff vehicle could have known the change of the lane of the defendant vehicle.

B. According to the overall purport of the evidence and arguments mentioned above, the defendant vehicle is not likely to obstruct the passage of the plaintiff vehicle in the event that it is likely to obstruct the passage of the plaintiff vehicle. In the situation where the safety distance with the plaintiff vehicle is not sufficiently secured, the direction, etc. is not operated and the plaintiff vehicle attempted to change the lane. On the other hand, the defendant vehicle has already entered the vehicle with the plaintiff vehicle prior to the occurrence of the accident in this case.