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 has entered into an automobile insurance contract with A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with B (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On November 11, 2016, around 17:40, there was an accident in which the Plaintiff’s vehicle, who was going straight from the two lanes to the three lanes of the three-lane distance between the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the three-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the driving seat

Since road works were in progress at the front of the accident site at the time, it was installed as a blind line in the first and second lanes from the point where the accident occurred to the point where the accident occurred, and the road construction-related person is stationed in the first and second lanes, and led the change of the lane of the vehicle being driven in the second and second lanes.

The defendant's vehicle operated slowly in accordance with the boundary and reception of the above container and changed the lane.

C. On November 18, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 881,100 with the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 2 to 4, Eul evidence 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. Although the point of the instant accident was the section where the change of course was prohibited, the Defendant’s vehicle was forced to shock the Plaintiff’s vehicle that was in progress by performing its duty of erode in the front direction while trying to change the lane in an unreasonable manner.

The instant accident is entirely caused by the negligence of Defendant vehicle.

B. In light of the developments leading up to the occurrence of the instant accident, the location of each vehicle, and the degree of collision, which can be seen by the evidence as seen earlier, the instant accident was almost completed by the Defendant’s vehicle following the traffic control, but did not reduce the speed without neglecting the duty of the front-time watch.