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 an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to D urban bus vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”). The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract for D urban bus vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. At around 06:40 on January 26, 2017, the bus driver of the Defendant vehicle: (a) laid off passengers at the bus stops located near Songpa-gu, Songpa-gu, Seoul at the fourth line street; and (b) changed the bus line from four lanes to one lane.

The driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving along the fourth line of the above Part also changed the said vehicle to the third lane in order to avoid the collision with the Defendant’s vehicle, while the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle changing the said vehicle to the third lane in order to avoid the collision with the Defendant’s vehicle, the control power was lost in the process and turn back to the central separation zone, and the central separation zone was shocked (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On February 6, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,890,000 insurance money to the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries and images of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant accident caused by the rapid change of the vehicle from four lanes to one lane by the Defendant vehicle.

As such, since the accident of this case occurred due to the total negligence of the Defendant’s driver, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the above insurance proceeds of KRW 1,890,000 and delay damages therefor.

B. According to the above facts and the evidence revealed earlier, since the driver of the Defendant vehicle tried to change the vehicle from four lanes to one lane at the time of the instant accident, the driver of the Defendant vehicle failed to properly examine the operating speed and distance between the other vehicle and failed to perform such duties.