1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

On July 15, 2019, at the time of the accident, the plaintiff's vehicle CD at the time of the accident and the defendant's vehicle D at the time of the accident changed from the two-lane to the three-lane to the left while the plaintiff's vehicle in the situation of the collision to the E-section at the vicinity of the city of Bupyeong-si at the location of Bupyeong-si at the location of the third-lane to the third-lane, and the driver's share of 2,300,000 won to be paid for the insurance proceeds of the collision with the defendant vehicle

1. The circumstances leading to the instant accident are as follows.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, 9 and Eul evidence No. 2 (including provisional number) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the accident of this case occurred by unilateral negligence on the part of the defendant vehicle because the defendant vehicle, who was left left at the two-lanes while the plaintiff vehicle was left left at the three-lanes of the above intersection, did not turn on the direction direction, and changed to the three-lanes, and the part on the rear side of the driver's seat of the plaintiff vehicle was conflicting.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's vehicle driving on a three-lane is rapidly overtaking the defendant's vehicle in the form of a small circuit, and that the defendant's negligence is greater than that of the plaintiff's vehicle's duty of safe driving.

B. The following circumstances, which can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence and the overall purport of oral arguments as seen earlier, namely, the Plaintiff’s vehicle is going to turn to the left at the three-lanes, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle is going to turn to the left at a rapid speed from the two-lanes to the three-lanes prior to the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the instant accident occurred, and the Defendant’s vehicle did not properly look at the front direction in the process. On the other hand, in light of the fact that the Defendant’s vehicle did not turn to the direction while changing the lanes as above, the Defendant’s vehicle was negligent in failing to turn to the direction, etc., and the background of the accident, the degree of collision, and the degree of shock indicated in the record, etc.