1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with the automobile E (hereinafter “Defendant”), with respect to the automobile D (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with the automobile E (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On September 6, 2019, around 19:55, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the road near the long distance in the vicinity of the 3rd Station in Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, and operated the said vehicle on a six-lane way among the seven-lane roads in the direction of the long distance in the original direction. At that time, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor changed the line from the four-lane to the six-lane, following five-lanes in the same direction, caused a traffic accident in which the front part of the right-hand part of the Defendant’s vehicle and the front part of the left-hand part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle conflict (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(c)

On October 31, 2019, the Plaintiff paid the remainder of KRW 3,361,00,000, excluding KRW 500,000,000, out of the total repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, 10, Eul evidence No. 3 or video, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s alleged vehicle was driven normally at six lanes near the 3-lane radius in Songpa-gu, Songpa-gu, Seoul. However, the instant accident occurred on the wind that the Defendant’s vehicle driven along the 4-lane between the 7-lanes and rapid change of the 6-lanes beyond the safety zone.

Therefore, since the instant accident occurred due to the total negligence of Defendant vehicle, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of reimbursement equivalent to the repair cost of KRW 3,361,00 and the delayed damages.

B. In full view of the aforementioned evidence and the overall purport of the changed theory, the instant accident occurred due to the primary negligence of Defendant vehicle, which was changed rapidly beyond the safety zone of the access road.

It is reasonable to view it.

However, the above facts and the evidence mentioned above are recognized.