1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with B (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. Around April 13, 2017, the Defendant’s vehicle changed the lane rapidly to the two lanes from the four-lanes in front of the D gas station located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, while changing the lane to the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the vehicle changed to the two-lanes in front of the Defendant’s vehicle.

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

On April 28, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 763,700 at the repair cost of the Defendant’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the previous negligence of the Defendant’s driver on the ground that the instant accident occurred when the Defendant’s vehicle driven along the first lane on the fourth lane, and the sudden change to the second lane, resulting in the Plaintiff’s shocking of the vehicle.

Therefore, the defendant, who is the insurer of the defendant vehicle, is obligated to pay the insurance money paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff and damages for delay.

B. Article 19(3) of the Road Traffic Act provides that “The driver of any motor vehicle shall not change its course when it is likely to impede normal traffic of other motor vehicles running in the direction to which the driver intends to change course of the motor vehicle.”

In light of the situation of the accident of this case and the location of each vehicle and the degree of collision, which can be seen by the evidence mentioned above, the accident of this case is urgent by neglecting the duty of care to safely change the vehicle vehicle by examining the movement of the vehicle in the same direction so as not to obstruct the passage of the vehicle when changing the vehicle.