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. The circumstances leading up to the instant accident are as follows.

On June 1, 2018, at the time of the accident, the Plaintiff’s mutual-aid vehicle CD, at the time of the accident, went into three lanes in the situation of the collision with the Plaintiff’s vehicle in front of the Seoul Southernbuk-gu, Seoul Northern-gu, on June 1, 2018. The purport of the entire pleadings is as follows: (a) the Defendant’s vehicle driving the two-lanes of the same road is changing the course to three-lanes in the intersection in order for the Plaintiff’s vehicle to take passengers on the part of India to board the two-lanes; and (b) the Plaintiff’s vehicle immediately operated the vehicle to avoid the injury as a result of the rapid operation of the vehicle; (c) 3,358,620 won of the insurance money paid for the injury of the Plaintiff’s passenger on October 18, 2018; (d) there is no dispute with the Plaintiff’s ground for recognition of the mutual-aid vehicle “A

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case occurred as a whole by negligence of the defendant vehicle who attempted to change the lane within the intersection where the change of lane is prohibited.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the accident in this case occurred due to the total negligence of the plaintiff vehicle that was excessively stopped while driving in a speed without a attention to the defendant vehicle that tried to change the lane.

B. In full view of the aforementioned facts and the purport of the argument in the entirety of the evidence revealed earlier, the driver of the Defendant vehicle, at the time of the instant accident, tried to change the lane from the two lanes to the three-lanes in the intersection, and thus, the driver of the Defendant vehicle had a duty of care to change the course by properly examining the operating speed and distance between other vehicles driving the three-lanes, but failed to perform such duty and attempted to change the lane while the Plaintiff vehicle in the three-lanes in the process of the instant accident without properly examining the Plaintiff vehicle.

I would like to say.

On the other hand, even though the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle took a direction while driving the Defendant’s vehicle, the driver of the vehicle must take the direction.