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. Basic facts

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

B. At around 10:50 on May 28, 2015, Defendant vehicles changed the course to the right side of the Plaintiff vehicle, which was straighted from the right side of the vehicle, in order to go up to the access road to the Young River from the south of the Young River as the Seoul Olympic Games, into the right side of the Defendant vehicle.

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

On June 9, 2015, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 800,000 at the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 5, or the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant's driver caused the accident of this case while unfairly cutting the vehicle in the section where the change of course is prohibited. Thus, the defendant asserts that the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the amount of KRW 800,000 and the delay damages equivalent to the total amount of the repair cost.

As to this, the defendant asserts to the effect that the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle should be taken into account in calculating the amount of damages, since the accident occurred while intending to pass by the defendant vehicle at a rapid speed not to allow the driver of the plaintiff vehicle to stick to the defendant vehicle.

B. The above facts of recognition and the following circumstances revealed by the evidence as seen earlier, namely, the instant accident occurred in the process of changing the lane of the Defendant’s vehicle, and the Defendant’s driver who changed the lane appears to have neglected the change of the lane in spite of his duty not to obstruct the passage of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving on the access lane to the Yeongdeungpo-gu Intersection. However, the instant accident site is the place of accident.