1. Of the judgment of the first instance, KRW 2,310,700 against the Plaintiff among the judgment of the court of first instance, and its related thereto, from October 11, 2017 to October 17, 2018.

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with A car (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid operator who has entered into an automobile mutual aid contract with respect to B cab (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”).

On September 13, 2017, around 08:00, the vehicle of the defendant, who stops and re-enters on the two-lanes among the three-lanes adjacent to the inndong of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the vehicle of the plaintiff, which was located in the first two-lanes, has a conflict between the vehicle of the defendant, which was driven over the first and second lanes damaged the defendant vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case").

On October 10, 2017, the Plaintiff, as the insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, paid KRW 3,301,000 in total for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in accordance with the instant accident.

[Grounds for recognition] The plaintiff's assertion that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence No. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 2, and the purport of the whole pleading of the accident of this case is in conflict with the plaintiff's vehicle which was normally done in terms of the reason that the defendant's vehicle started again, without examining at all whether there is a vehicle that was coming after stopping. Thus, the responsibility of the accident of this case is entirely responsible for the accident of this case.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's vehicle seeking to overtake the defendant's vehicle in violation of the method of overtaking under the Road Traffic Act also has considerable responsibility for the occurrence of the accident of this case.

Judgment

According to Article 19 (3) of the Road Traffic Act, no driver shall change course when it is anticipated to obstruct normal traffic of other vehicles running in the direction to which he/she intends to change course of his/her vehicle, and pursuant to Article 38 (1) of the same Act, a driver shall, when intending to change course, give signals with his/her hand, direction indicator or light until such act ends.

However, according to the video of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence No. 2.