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 that has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the automobile C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that entered into an automobile mutual aid contract with respect to D vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. At around 11:50 on September 8, 2018, the Defendant’s vehicle driving a two-lane road near the Seo-gu, Seogu, Daegu apartment, and the Defendant’s vehicle driving a two-lane changed the vehicle to one-lane in order to cause damage to the chartered bus parked in the front bank. In the process, the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s accident, which led to a shock between the lower pandeer on the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle and the lower pandeer on the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, driving a one-lane, was caused.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On September 20, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,409,00 (except for KRW 200,000 for self-charges) at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3, video, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Article 19(3) of the Road Traffic Act provides that “The driver of any motor vehicle shall not change course when it is likely to impede normal traffic of other motor vehicles running in the direction to which the driver intends to change course of the motor vehicle.”

According to the above facts and evidence, the driver of the defendant vehicle operating a two-lane at the time of the accident in this case bears the duty of care to safely change the vehicle so that it does not obstruct the passage of the plaintiff vehicle, but neglects the duty of care to safely change the vehicle so that it does not cause any trouble to the traffic of the plaintiff vehicle, and it is determined that the driver changed the vehicle line to cause the accident in this case.

However, in light of the occurrence of the accident, the location of each vehicle and the conflict, road situation, etc. at the time of the accident, the driver's breach of duty in front of the Plaintiff's front-time driver is also an accident in this case.