1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Basic Facts

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

On May 25, 2017, at around 09:33, the defendant's vehicle driven along the four lanes in front of the exit road of Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City, one-lane in the five-lane road in front of the exit road, and the truck in front of the fourth lane changed to the three-lane road. The truck, which was in front of the fourth lane, turned on the direction direction direction, was stopped after the rapid reduction of the defect in order to change the vehicle into the third lane.

The three-lane vehicle driving along the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “non-party vehicle”) was stopped by reporting it, and the following vehicle of the Plaintiff was not stopped and received the back part of the non-party vehicle as the front part of the Plaintiff vehicle, and there was an accident in which the non-party vehicle was pushed down.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). The Plaintiff paid KRW 17,730,000 in total at the repair cost of Nonparty 1’s vehicle.

[Based on recognition, the Plaintiff asserted that the parties to the instant accident was responsible for the descriptions and images of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant accident was due to the total negligence of the Defendant vehicle, on the ground that the front vehicle, which was the four-lane, did not yield the direction, etc. on the left side, and continued to change the three-lane, while continuing to change the previous vehicle into the three-lane, without yielding the direction, and that there was an urgent stop. The instant accident was caused by negligence of violating the duty of safe driving, such as violating the method of career change and stopping.

In this regard, the defendant did not make any error in the change of the vehicle line of the defendant vehicle, and the defendant vehicle is the defendant vehicle.