1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with C with respect to D vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), and the Defendant is a person who has driven a vehicle E (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On September 22, 2018, C driven the Plaintiff’s 11:35 on September 2, 2018, and proceeds at the intersection between three lanes in front of the four-lane 539 educational intersection in Gwangju-dong-ro, Gwangju-gu, Gwangju-ro, while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle on a three-lane basis, and then shocked the Defendant’s driver on the side of the driver’s seat of the Defendant’s vehicle, who tried to turn the vehicle to the intersection after changing the vehicle to four-lane, into the four-lane, into the direction behind the steering of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

On November 12, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,382,692 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident to C as insurance proceeds.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion was proceeding ahead of the Defendant’s vehicle, and the vehicle parked in the fourth lane in the direction of its proceeding had no choice but to be bypassed from the three lanes. Therefore, the Defendant neglected the operation of the Plaintiff’s vehicle by sufficiently examining the movement of the Plaintiff’s vehicle that was driven earlier, and the instant accident occurred even though it was necessary to safely operate the vehicle by neglecting it.

Therefore, since the accident of this case occurred by the defendant's total negligence, the defendant should compensate for all damages caused by the accident of this case.

3. Determination

A. The following circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the evidence and the overall purport of the pleadings as seen earlier, namely, the Plaintiff’s vehicle attempted to make a right-hand turn on the three-lanes immediately preceding the instant accident but did not turn on the direction-setting, etc. before making a right-hand turn, seems difficult for the Defendant to sufficiently predict the Plaintiff’s sudden right-hand turn on, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was parked in the fourth-lane direction.