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 concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded the automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On February 12, 2015, around 16:35, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was proceeding from the shooting distance room of the road of the third line in the vicinity of the Dong-dong, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, to the shooting distance range of the Dong-dong market. However, while the Defendant’s vehicle on the right-hand side changed from the two-lane to the one-lane, the part of the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, along the upper part, to the left-hand part of the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle.

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

On February 25, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,218,400 of the insurance money for the damage of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 5 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In light of the fact that at the time of the instant accident, the Defendant’s vehicle, in the front left side of the driver’s line with the part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving ahead of the driver’s line, at the time of the instant accident, conflicts with the front left side of the driver’s line, it seems unreasonable that the Defendant’s vehicle did not secure sufficient distance with the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the extent that it could change the vehicle line, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the instant accident occurred due to the failure of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to yield an agreement to change the vehicle while the Plaintiff’s side knew of its intention to change the vehicle line, it is reasonable to deem that the instant accident was caused by the previous negligence of the Defendant vehicle that attempted to change the vehicle line without properly verifying the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

3. Thus, the defendant, who is the insurer of the defendant vehicle, is the insurer of the plaintiff's insurance proceeds of KRW 1,218,400 and the plaintiff's insurance proceeds of this case from February 26, 2015, following the payment of the plaintiff's insurance proceeds.