1. The judgment of the first instance is modified as follows to the participation of the intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff:

The defendant is against the plaintiff succeeding intervenor.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. As to the Plaintiff’s B-owned vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s vehicle C (hereinafter “Defendant”). On May 27, 2015, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor succeeded to the rights and obligations under the automobile insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s vehicle after receiving the entire business from the Plaintiff.

B. At around 12:30 on October 21, 2014, the Defendant’s vehicle driven along the four-lanes in front of the shooting distance in the front line of the Seocho-gu Seoul Central Tridong District, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, and attempted to change the lane on the front line of the Plaintiff’s vehicle while trying to avoid the vehicle parked in the front line at the four-lanes. The front part of the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle driven in the third lane was shocked by the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle.

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

On December 18, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 240,000 insurance money at the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

2. According to the occurrence and scope of liability for damages and the above recognition, the instant accident occurred by negligence of the Defendant’s driver who attempted to capture the instant accident in an unreasonable manner.

I would like to say.

However, in light of the aforementioned facts and the following facts admitted by the evidence, namely, the vehicle driven prior to the Defendant’s vehicle, also appears to have been changed from the fourth lane to the front of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in order to avoid the vehicle parked on the front of the front road, and the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle could have anticipated that the vehicle in the fourth lane would also attempt to change the course into the third lane, the issuance of the accident should be prevented by reducing the speed when the Plaintiff’s driver found the Defendant’s vehicle seeking the change of the lane.