1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. Costs arising from an appeal and an incidental appeal.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with the Defendant for the vehicle B (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business operator who entered into an automobile mutual aid contract with the Defendant for the Defendant’s Intervenor for the Defendant’s Intervenor for the vehicle D taxi (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. Around 14:05 on April 14, 2016, while the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driving the Olympic Road, which is an exclusive motorway, in a lock room, with a view to entering the direction light light of the club in the vicinity of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Newdong, the Plaintiff’s vehicle changed the lane rapidly from three to five lanes, and there was an accident that conflict between the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s right side and the part of the Defendant’s vehicle driven by the Defendant joining the Defendant.

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

From April 28, 2016 to February 20, 2017, the Plaintiff paid 3,058,230 won for the Defendant vehicle E’s medical expenses, 3,359,290 won for the agreed amount, F’s medical expenses for the Defendant vehicle passengers, 3,058,230 won for the agreed amount, 1,649,060 won for the Plaintiff vehicle drivers’ G medical expenses, 1,649,060 won for the agreed amount, and 3,50,000 won for the repair of the Plaintiff vehicle (excluding one’s own charges).

[Reasons for Recognition] The purport of the whole pleadings, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident changed rapidly from the third lane to the five lane, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was prohibited from changing the lane to the straight line, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was immediately prior to the beginning of the separation salary, and ③ the Defendant’s vehicle also entered the discharge zone and did not delay the speed. In light of the fact that, at the time of the instant accident, the instant accident reduces the primary negligence rate of the Plaintiff’s vehicle that immediately entered the discharge pole from the road where the change of lanes is prohibited.