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. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract between B and the insured and B with respect to B (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) as the insured and the insured, and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the vehicle E owned by D (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. At around 23:00 on March 4, 2015, C driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the two-lanes of the 3-lane road near G station located in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si (hereinafter “instant road”). However, the Defendant’s vehicle, who was signaled from the first lane of the said road, changed the course to the two-lane, destroyed the back part of the Plaintiff’s driver’s seat while changing the course to the two-lane.

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

On March 31, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 287,300, which is the amount equivalent to the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, to C as insurance money for the instant accident.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the fact that the instant accident occurred due to the negligence of Defendant vehicle, the Defendant is obligated to pay 287,300 won equivalent to the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff, as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from April 1, 2015 to April 30, 2015, the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint from April 1, 2015, which is the day following the Plaintiff’s payment date of insurance money, and from the next day to the day of full payment, 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion,

B. As to the Defendant’s argument, regarding the background of the instant accident, the Defendant’s vehicle was proceeding to the first lane of the instant road, while changing the course to the second lane. However, it was unreasonable for the Plaintiff’s vehicle to proceed to the third lane, while changing to the second lane, and the Plaintiff’s course to the second wheels of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was shocked.