1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with the owner of Alearning motor vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with B (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On November 10, 2016, around 12:40, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was in contact with the bus seeking to change the lane that the Defendant’s vehicle stopped in the safety zone due to the Gangseo-dong, Mapo-gu, Seoul. On November 10, 2016, there was an accident that shocked on the left side of the road protection wall to avoid the collision with the bus.

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

The Plaintiff paid insurance money of KRW 603,980, KRW 500,000, KRW 658,80, and KRW 1,450,00, and KRW 3,212,780, as the repair cost of buses, due to the instant accident, for the medical expenses and agreed money of the bus driver, KRW 603,980, KRW 400,000, as the bus repair cost.

[Grounds for recognition] Each entry of Gap 1, 6, and 9 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. On the plaintiff's assertion, the plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case occurred due to the total negligence of the defendant vehicle, since the defendant vehicle was rapidly stopped on the Handok on the road, and the plaintiff vehicle inevitably changed the lane in order to avoid collision with the defendant vehicle, and the accident of this case occurred.

According to the images of Gap evidence No. 3, while the defendant vehicle and other vehicles following the vehicle and the plaintiff vehicle are protruding even, they are moving along the three lanes, the defendant vehicle is trying to turn on emergency lights and stop on a safety zone installed between the two lanes and the three lanes, and the other vehicles following the vehicle are driving along the three lanes without a collision by lowering speed. On the other hand, the plaintiff vehicle has changed the three lanes from the actual line where the change of lanes is prohibited to the two lanes to the two lanes, and they normally drive the two lanes.