The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purport and purport of the appeal

1. The purport of the claim;

1. At the time of the occurrence of the basic fact-finding accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle temporarily CDD D D D on July 20, 2019 at the time of the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle entering the front bank of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the situation of the collision of the front road in Gangnam-gu Seoul E-gu (hereinafter “instant road”) where the Plaintiff’s vehicle is a seven-lane road, the four-lanes of the instant road, which is located across the Hannam Bridge, along the four-lanes of the instant road at a rapid speed from the 7-lane to the four-lanes of the instant road, find that the Defendant vehicle, while changing its line from the 7-lane to the four-lane of the instant road, entered the front bank of the Plaintiff vehicle, and that the Plaintiff vehicle is proceeding three-lanes of the instant road at a rapid speed.

F. The instant accident occurred due to the shock of the F car. The Plaintiff’s damages amounted to KRW 117,200 and KRW 108,520,000 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the rest fee are as follows.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence of Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence of No. 1 to 4, the purpose of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s instant accident occurred in the course of the Defendant’s driver’s defense driving on the wind, as the Defendant’s vehicle simultaneously crosses several lanes, and the instant accident occurred due to the previous negligence of the Defendant’s driver.

B. In the instant accident, the negligence of the Plaintiff’s driver who failed to discover the change of the vehicle of the Defendant’s vehicle due to the failure of the Plaintiff’s driver to perform his duty on the front line, and the negligence of the Plaintiff’s driver who neglected the duty to drive safety and avoided the vehicle by the next line. As such, the negligence of the Plaintiff’s driver ought to be fully considered.

3. Determination

A. According to the above basic facts, the accident of this case was caused by the negligence in which the driver of the defendant vehicle changed the number of lanes in a lump sum, and the driver of the defendant vehicle caused the driver's negligence in the future of the plaintiff vehicle.

B. However, there is a need to see.