1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with A and B (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is the owner of C Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. At around 18:20 on November 27, 2014, A driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the E neighboring shooting distance, which is located in D, and led to the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was straighted as the seat of the Gyeonggi Manpower Development Institute, depending on three-lanes of the sports manpower development institute, at one-lane 7 and eight-lanes, depending on one-lanes of the sports manpower development institute.

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

By April 20, 2015, with respect to the instant accident, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,046,000 in total as the medical expenses for the driver A of the Plaintiff vehicle and the repair expenses for the Plaintiff vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant accident: (a) the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the intersection after completing the right-hand line; (b) the Defendant’s vehicle attempted to change the vehicle from three lanes to four lanes depending on three lanes; and (c) the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which is proceeding on the right-hand side, was found to have been negligent in violating the method of front-waying and change of course; and (d) As such, the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s fault related to the instant accident is deemed to have been 40%, and the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 418,400 corresponding to the Defendant’s fault ratio among the insurance proceeds paid by the Plaintiff, and the damages for delay

B. The evidence submitted alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant’s vehicle immediately before the instant accident attempted to change the lanes from three lanes to four lanes, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle in relation to the instant accident, and rather, the said basic facts and Gap.