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. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with D vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On September 21, 2016, around 08:53, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driving along the bus exclusive lane in the direction of air morals in the west area among the roads around five lanes in Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu. However, the Defendant’s vehicle changed the lane to the two-lane, which is the left-hand one while driving a three-lane, the two-lane in the above road, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle would be able to walk the two-lane, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle would be able to walk the one-lane after the Defendant’s vehicle changed to the two-lane.

As a result, in the course of moving the Plaintiff’s vehicle to port, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was shocked in excess of F, a passenger aboard the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

By February 2, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 20,914,730,00 in total, as damages for losses, such as medical expenses in F due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3 and Eul evidence 1 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred in the course of operating the steering gear in order to avoid the risk of collision with the Plaintiff’s vehicle. The instant accident entirely occurred due to the negligence of the Defendant vehicle.

(2) At the time of the instant accident, the Defendant’s alleged Defendant’s vehicle did not intrude the bus exclusive lanes on which the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driving along, and even if there was no risk of collision with the Plaintiff’s vehicle, it is unnecessary for the Plaintiff’s vehicle.