1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. Cases of indemnity between the insurers of vehicles involved in a traffic accident;

A. On March 4, 2019, at the time of the accident, the Defendant’s insured vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”) Defendant’s insured vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”) C car D car of the case, the Defendant’s vehicle involved in the instant accident changed its course from the fourth to five lanes on March 4, 2019 to the front side of the Defendant’s right-hand side of the vehicle, while she changed its course from the fourth to the five lanes on March 4, 2019.

The payment of insurance proceeds shall be made on March 7, 2019 by deducting 200,000 won for self-payment of insurance proceeds.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that the accident occurred due to the sudden change of the lane by the Defendant’s vehicle caused the breakdown of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s vehicle is driving ahead of the Plaintiff’s vehicle for the change of the lane and driving slowly and changing the course into five lanes. The Plaintiff’s vehicle did not yield the course, but rather did so by speed.

The evidence submitted by the original and the defendant alone changed the lane of the defendant vehicle.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was accelerating by reporting the change of the lane of the Defendant’s vehicle.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view the negligence ratio of the plaintiff and the defendant vehicle as 30:70 as the same as the judgment of the court of first instance, in accordance with the general change of lanes.

[Grounds for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 5, Eul 1, Eul 2, 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

(c) The defendant's duty of indemnity (insurance proceeds of KRW 1,496,580) ¡¿ 0.7 - 200,000 = 987,606 won

2. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is consistent with this conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit.

Risk map Ma1: Defendant Vehicles, Ma2: Plaintiff Vehicles

1.3. Conclusion