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. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to CMW car (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to DM car (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On July 18, 2018, the Plaintiff’s vehicle conflict with the lane regulation bars installed at the place where the vehicle would avoid the Defendant’s vehicle, seeking to change the lane from the third lane to the fourth lane, while driving in the same direction while driving in the same direction as the other four-lanes of latitude from the Daejeon-si to the fourth lane from the Sejong-si.

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

On September 14, 2018, the Plaintiff paid insurance money of KRW 6,050,00 (excluding one’s own charge of KRW 500,000) in total with the repair cost, etc. of Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred on the wind that the Defendant’s vehicle did not look at the surrounding areas and did not turn on the direction light, and then the instant accident occurred. Thus, the instant accident was entirely caused by the negligence of the Defendant’s driver.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle could sufficiently avoid the instant accident, which led to 30% of the negligence of the Plaintiff’s driver.

3. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts and the evidence revealed earlier, i.e., ① in the event of a change of course, whether it is likely to obstruct the normal passage of vehicles running in the direction of the change (Article 19(3) of the Road Traffic Act). However, the accident of this case appears to have occurred with the wind to change the lane without neglecting it, and ②.