1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

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

At the time of the accident, the insured vehicle A, at the time of the insured vehicle A, at the location of 14:35 on November 10, 2017 at the time of the accident, the defendant vehicle, at the location of Yeongdeungpo-dong, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, Seoul, along the two lanes of the three-lane road from the surface of the Do management building distance to the surface of the Do management building road, was driving along the two-lane road at the Do management building distance, and the vehicle was changing into the three-lane road within the intersection. While the vehicle stops at the right side of the defendant vehicle, the vehicle stopped at the right side of the vehicle. The vehicle's right side side side side side of the defendant vehicle after the vehicle stopped the right side of the plaintiff vehicle while the vehicle stops at the right right side of the vehicle. The fact that there is no dispute over the damage of the secured self-owned vehicle [based on recognition], Gap 1 through 5, Eul 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole oral proceedings, as a whole.

2. Determination

A. As the cause of the instant claim, the Plaintiff, as the Defendant’s vehicle was negligent in changing its course from the two-lanes to the four-lanes in the vicinity of the intersection and the intersection, and the Plaintiff’s driver could not expect such change of the multiple-lanes of the Defendant vehicle, and thus, the instant accident occurred, thereby causing the negligence of the Defendant’s driver’s change of the multiple-lanes, which led to the occurrence of the instant accident. Accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the percentage of the Defendant’s driver’s fault.

B. Therefore, in order to recognize the plaintiff's above assertion, the defendant vehicle should have started the right ofpass in the future of the plaintiff vehicle. At that time, the defendant vehicle should have started the right ofpass in the future, and the defendant vehicle should have been located on the two-lanes. In particular, the defendant vehicle's front front side of the plaintiff vehicle which stops according to the evidence as above and the video of evidence A No. 4.