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. With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On August 20, 2014, around 08:30, an accident occurred where the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle that was proceeding in the same direction on the road near the Accounting Division by Yongsan-dong 2, Yongsan-gu, Seoul and the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle.

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

On November 13, 2014, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 520,000 in total at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the accident of this case occurred because the defendant vehicle, which the plaintiff's vehicle was driving in the same direction three-lanes among the three-lanes of the location of the accident of this case, was changing rapidly through the two-lanes to the right side of the plaintiff vehicle at the bottom of the left side of the defendant vehicle, and the accident of this case was caused by shocking the right side of the plaintiff vehicle at the bottom of the left side side of the vehicle of this case. Therefore, the accident of this case was caused by the previous negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle, and therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiff

On the other hand, the defendant's vehicle changed from a three-lane to a two-lane and the body of the vehicle entered into the two-lanes, and the accident of this case occurred in conflict with the plaintiff's vehicle that attempted to change the two-lanes. This is reasonable to view that the negligence between the plaintiff's vehicle driver and the driver of the defendant's vehicle who failed to fulfill his duty of care while changing the lane is concurrent, and that the negligence ratio is 50:50. Thus, the defendant asserts that the part exceeding the amount calculated according to the fault ratio of the driver of the defendant's vehicle does not comply with the plaintiff's claim.

B. The Plaintiff’s vehicle among the three-lane roads prior to the instant accident is determined.