1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the Plaintiff’s vehicle B (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”), and the Defendant is as follows.

A driver of C vehicle at the time of an accident described in the port (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant vehicle").

B. At around 12:30 on February 11, 2014, Nonparty D driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle along the three-lanes of the three-lane road located in Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, and changed the vehicle to the two-lanes that caused damage to the numberless vehicle located on the front side, Nonparty D was faced with an accident that conflicts between the remaining parts of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle driving along the two-lanes.

(hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On April 10, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 20,920,000 insurance money at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. On December 24, 2014, the Plaintiff returned KRW 10,000,000 from the interested country Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., which was an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract for the Defendant’s vehicle with the limit of property liability.

On the other hand, the Defendant spent KRW 2,500,000 at the repair cost of the Defendant’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 10, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence and scope of liability for damages;

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant vehicle is obliged to pay 10,920,000 won (i.e., the above insurance amount of KRW 20,920,000 - the above returned amount of KRW 10,000) and damages for delay, since the plaintiff vehicle is driving along the three-lanes of the above road and neglected to pay the front-way in the front-way city and attempted to change the two-lanes due to the negligence of not securing the safety distance.

In this regard, the defendant was running along the two-lanes of the above road.