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 entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with A and B with a family limited driving agreement, etc., and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with D and D and D and D with respect to automobiles.

B. On June 29, 2015, the said pro rata vehicle driven by the wife E (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff vehicle”) was driving in five lanes among the four-lanes in front of the second water control intersection in Daejeon Dong-dong, Daejeon (hereinafter referred to as the “instant road”), and the Dracker vehicle driven by C (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant vehicle”) was driving in the same direction as the Plaintiff vehicle in the six-lane of the instant road.

In the process that the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was going into the five-lane, was changed into the six-lanes where the Defendant’s vehicle was in operation, the lower part of the entire right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the lower part on the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle were contacted.

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

After the accident of this case, the defendant paid KRW 1,583,620 as the repair cost of the defendant's vehicle.

The committee for deliberation on dispute over compensation for automobile insurance (hereinafter referred to as the “Dispute Deliberation Committee”) decided to deliberate on and coordinate the following: (a) the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle in relation to the instant accident was “90:10;” and (b) the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,425,258 to the Defendant on November 3, 2015, according to the aforementioned deliberation

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter referred to as "branch numbers"), Eul evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion occurred by force majeure, where E who driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle could not become aware of the Defendant’s vehicle moving back from the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle while changing the vehicle line normally at a changeable point of the vehicle line, and the cause of the instant accident.