1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On June 15, 2019, around 12:22, the Plaintiff’s vehicle changed the course from three lanes to two lanes in the Gyeonggi-si, Gwangju-si. The Defendant’s vehicle entered the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the two-lane, and the lower part on the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was shocked.

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

On June 25, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,240,000 as insurance money, excluding KRW 310,000,00, out of total damages, such as the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence No. 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case occurred when the defendant's vehicle entered the right part of the right part, even though the plaintiff's vehicle was in two lanes prior to the accident in this case. The plaintiff's vehicle as the plaintiff's vehicle did not have a way to avoid a conflict with the defendant's vehicle, and therefore there was no negligence of the plaintiff's vehicle.

(2) As to this, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was at least 30% of the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, since the Plaintiff’s vehicle did not find the Defendant’s vehicle entering the right side while changing its course from the three lanes immediately following the U.S. internship to the two lanes.

B. (1) The following circumstances that can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence stated earlier in the underlying facts of the right to indemnity: (i) the Defendant vehicle entered the three-lanes when entering the right side side, but it is unreasonable to enter the two-lanes; (ii) the unreasonable entry of the Defendant vehicle appears to have a direct cause of the instant accident; and (iii) the Plaintiff vehicle was in the normal U-turn before the instant accident occurred, and thus, the Defendant vehicle is sufficient.