1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to A vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business operator who entered into a car mutual aid contract with respect to B urban bus (hereinafter “Defendant bus”).

B. On December 30, 2016, around 15:10 on December 30, 2016, the Plaintiff’s vehicle proceeded along the two lanes of the D Hospital located in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, along the three-lanes, and changed the course to one’s own three-lanes. The Defendant bus was rapidly parked in order to avoid a conflict with the Plaintiff’s vehicle. Accordingly, the Defendant bus was cut off beyond the passenger E (hereinafter “victim”) who was on the Defendant bus, resulting in a plehing of the plehion.

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

From January 19, 2017 to August 21, 2017, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 38,336,890 in total to the victim with medical expenses, agreed fees, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 5 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the change of the lane of the driver of the Plaintiff bus, but the Defendant bus driver also exercised the duty of care to prevent the accident by driving and defending the Plaintiff’s vehicle, while neglecting the duty of care to prevent the accident by driving and defending the vehicle. Thus, the Defendant bus driver’s fault ratio in the instant accident is about 50%.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle who changed the lane in front of the defendant bus.

B. The following circumstances are revealed in light of the overall purport of the aforementioned facts of recognition and the evidence presented earlier, i.e., the normal passage of another vehicle running in the same direction at the same lane when changing the lane.