1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurance company that has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicles”). The Defendant is an insurance company that entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

B. Around 10:45 on July 14, 2017, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driven along the first lane on the 2nd line in Geumcheon-si, Geumcheon-si, Geumcheon-si, Seocheon-si, with the freight vehicle following the other than the road, and the Defendant’s vehicle, who entered the two-lanes, did not avoid any defect in the change of the fleet between the freight vehicle following the other road and the front vehicle again, and did not avoid any defect in the change of the fleet to the first lane, and did not match the left side of the Defendant vehicle with the front right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

On August 2, 2017, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 5,800,000 at the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant accident occurred while securing a sufficient distance from the Defendant’s vehicle when changing the course. However, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was unable to enter the Defendant’s vehicle due to the freight lane driven behind the Defendant’s vehicle, which is due to the overall negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle, and thus, the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the freight vehicle behind the Defendant’s vehicle are under a change of course with a considerable distance from the Plaintiff’s vehicle from before the point of the accident occurred, so even if the Plaintiff’s vehicle was discovered and tried to reduce the speed or not to permit the change of the lane, the Plaintiff’s vehicle could prevent the accident if it would have occurred with a horn or headlight, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle could have a telephone call while driving.