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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to AEX vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicles”). The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to B dump trucks (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

B. On August 4, 2016, at around 08:55, C was driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle and driving the two-lanes of the road near Busan Metropolitan City, Busan Metropolitan City, as a blue-do screen. However, in the process where the Defendant’s vehicle driving on the first lane of the said road changes from one to two-lanes, there was an accident of conflicting the other side behind the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was prior to the Defendant’s right side, in the course of changing the course from one to two-lane.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

From September 1, 2016 to September 6, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,983,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute; entries and images of Gap evidence 1 to 5; inquiry and reply to the chief of the police station of the party's jurisdiction; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case occurred entirely due to the accident that occurred while the driver of the defendant vehicle attempted to change the lane from the first lane to the second lane, and thus, the accident of this case occurred entirely from the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle. Thus, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant who is the insurer of the defendant vehicle seek reimbursement equivalent to the total insurance money paid by the plaintiff and compensation for delay.

As to this, the Defendant asserts that the instant accident occurred while the Plaintiff’s driver changed the lane, and even if it occurred in the process of changing the lane, the Plaintiff’s driver was negligent in neglecting the duty of care and thus, the part corresponding to 50% of the fault ratio of the Plaintiff’s driver cannot be responded to the Plaintiff’s claim.

3. Determination

(a) The driver of any motor vehicle that has a right to indemnity shall drive the motor vehicle;