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 Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to C rocketing vehicles owned by B (hereinafter “Plaintiff-motor vehicle”), and the Defendant is the owner of D Two-wheeled Motor Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Oba”).

나. 피고는 2015. 7. 23. 10:35경 피고 오토바이에 처인 E를 태우고 원주시 F에 있는 G오토� 앞 부근 편도 3차선 도로의 2차로를 진행하던 중 1차로로 차선변경을 시도하다가 1차로를 주행 중이던 원고 차량의 우측 앞 휀다 부분과 앞뒤 문짝 부분 등을 피고 오토바이 좌측 옆 부분으로 충격하였고, 이로 인하여 원고 차량 운전자인 H이 요추부 염좌, 뇌진탕 등 약 2주간의 치료를 요하는 상해를 입었다

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

On September 11, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,247,700 insurance money at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Gap evidence 8, and video (including branch numbers for those with serial numbers), the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of the negligence ratio, the defendant who intends to change the vehicle from the two lanes to the one lane is negligent in neglecting his/her duty of care to change the vehicle's attitude on the left side, even though he/she has a duty of care to safely change the vehicle's attitude on the part of the plaintiff's left side. The plaintiff's vehicle is also negligent in neglecting his/her duty of care to safely examine the movement of the defendant's Ortoa who intends to change the vehicle on the two lanes adjacent to the right side, even though he/she has a duty of care to safely do so. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem the negligence ratio of the plaintiff's vehicle and the defendant's Ora 30% on the part of the plaintiff's vehicle: the defendant's vehicle is 7

피고는, 피고 오토바이가 좌회전 깜빡이를 켜면서 1차로를 주행하고 있었는데 원고 차량이 뒤에서 중앙선을 침범한 상태로 피고 오토바이를 따라오다가 갑자기 우측으로 방향을 틀면서...