1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

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 an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On February 5, 2016, at around 14:25, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven along the three lanes of the third lane road in the Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-gu Clean Zone, and, while changing the two lanes from the three lanes to the two lanes, the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle was shocked into the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

On March 10, 2016, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 391,800 at the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Grounds for Recognition] The descriptions and images of Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 1 and 2

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to one’s fault, since the Defendant, who followed the instant accident, was overtaking the Plaintiff’s vehicle in an unreasonable way, and the Defendant, the insurer of the Defendant, is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

B. The driver of any motor vehicle shall not change the course when it is likely to impede the normal traffic of other motor vehicles running in the direction to change the course of the motor vehicle (Article 19(3) of the Road Traffic Act). However, according to the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, the driver of any motor vehicle who intends to change the course of the motor vehicle to another motor vehicle shall not change the course of the motor vehicle (Article 19(3) of the Road Traffic Act). However, according to the purport of the evidence and the entire pleadings, the motor vehicle following the motor vehicle from the third vehicle has been running the two motor vehicles after changing the vehicle from the third vehicle immediately after the crossing. Nevertheless, the motor vehicle of any other motor vehicle is unreasonably changed to the

Therefore, the accident of this case is the whole part of the Plaintiff vehicle that attempted to change the vehicle without properly checking the Defendant vehicle.