1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s vehicle B (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”) as the insured, and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded the automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle C (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).

B. While driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle and driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle into a two-lane from the front line of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the front line of the Plaintiff’s vehicle while driving the two-lane, the safety zone on the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was shocked by the front line of the Plaintiff’s seat in the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

On January 4, 2016, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 6,208,570 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle caused by the instant accident to the repair business entity.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Gap evidence 6, video and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. While the Plaintiff’s vehicle is proceeding ahead of the Defendant’s vehicle, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driving ahead of the two lanes of the two lanes, the instant accident occurred due to the negligence of the Defendant’s driver, as the Defendant’s vehicle gets involved in the process of turning the Defendant’s vehicle into one lane.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay the full amount of the automobile repair cost paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff as the indemnity.

B. The instant accident occurred when the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, who followed the vehicle behind the Defendant’s vehicle on the two lanes, tried to overtake the Defendant vehicle at a rapid speed from the two lanes to the one-lane, and the Defendant’s vehicle was changed to the one-lane, without verifying the Defendant’s vehicle that was moving on a normal direction, and was changing to the one-lane, and thus, the instant accident occurred while the Plaintiff’s driver’s overtaking. Thus, there is no negligence on the part of the Defendant’s driver.

3. Determination

A. According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 6’s video and pleading, the liability for damages arises.