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. Basic facts

A. The circumstances surrounding the instant accident are as follows.

At the time of the accident, on April 1, 2018, the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), the Defendant insured vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”), at the time of the accident, on April 22:50, 2018 at the time of the accident, the 3rd line of the collision of the road in the direction of Howon-dong, the government viewing of the Dongwon-dong, Dongwon-dong, Dongwon-dong, for the government, changing the course from the two lanes to the one-lane, and the Defendant vehicle was in the first lane. The Defendant vehicle was in the front line of the left-hand part of the Plaintiff vehicle and the front part of the right-hand part of the Defendant vehicle, and KRW 745,600,000, the self-paid share of the Defendant

B. On April 10, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 745,600,00, after deducting KRW 200,000 of the self-paid cost for damages, such as the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the foregoing accident, as insurance proceeds.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s instant accident conflicts with the Defendant’s driver’s seat of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in front of the front of the Defendant’s vehicle while the Plaintiff’s vehicle was changing from the two-lane to the one-lane. The Plaintiff’s vehicle was in a state of ensuring sufficient safety distance from the Defendant’s vehicle at the time of the commencement of the change of course; at the time, the Plaintiff’s vehicle operated the direction while changing the course; the Defendant’s vehicle operated the left-hand direction while driving the vehicle; and even if the Defendant’s vehicle was driven by excessive speed, it is reasonable to regard the fault ratio of the Defendant’s vehicle as above 60% by taking account of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s vehicle was in a state of securing sufficient safety distance from the Defendant’s vehicle at the time

B. The driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle has already been driving along the Defendant’s vehicle at the time of changing the course from the two-lane to the one-lane, and thus, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle is well aware of the movement of the Defendant’s vehicle running along the one-lane.