1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid operator who has entered into an automobile mutual aid contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On August 12, 2015, around 09:25, the Defendant’s vehicle was driving along the two lanes in front of the D hotel in Suwon-si C, Suwon-si, and changed the three lanes into the three-lane, and the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven in the same direction into the right side of the Defendant vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On September 1, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 247,700 as the repair cost for Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 5, Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case occurred from the two lanes to the three lanes and due to the total negligence of the defendant's driver who violated the duty of Jeonju, and thus, the defendant is obliged to claim compensation for the total amount of the insurance money paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the accident of this case occurred because the plaintiff's vehicle is too unreasonable even though the defendant's vehicle was changed normally, and thus, the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle has a full negligence.

B. In light of the following circumstances, in light of the evidence presented in the judgment as a whole, it is reasonable to view that the instant accident was caused by the negligence of the Plaintiff’s driver, who carried out almost changing lanes on the right side of the Defendant vehicle, without proceeding safely by examining the behavior of driving the Defendant vehicle, which was changing the lanes on the front side, and without proceeding safely thereafter.

Therefore, the defendant vehicle is involved in the occurrence of the accident of this case.