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. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract on behalf of the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the owner of the B-si (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”), and the Intervenor’s Intervenor is the mutual aider who entered into a comprehensive automobile mutual aid contract with the Defendant’s vehicle.

B. At around 04:00 on April 27, 2013, C, while driving a plaintiff vehicle and driving a four-lane road near the Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Hongdong Station, the defendant, who is a preceding vehicle, changed the lane from the three-lane to the two-lane, changed the lane, and the vehicle was rapid, and the part of the back part on the left part of the plaintiff vehicle, which is the front part of the vehicle's left part.

(hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case")

By September 6, 2013, the Plaintiff paid the total sum of KRW 12,029,700,000 due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries or videos of Gap's evidence 1 to 7, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the accident in this case occurred without securing the safety distance between the plaintiff's vehicle's main and the defendant's vehicle's sudden negligence on the road without any specific reason. Thus, it is reasonable to 30% of the defendant's driver's negligence. Thus, the defendant asserts that the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the indemnity amount of KRW 3608,910 (=12,029,700 x 0.3). The defendant asserts that the accident in this case occurred from the whole negligence of the plaintiff's driver, so the defendant does not have the duty of compensation.

3. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s vehicle changed from the three lanes to the two lanes depending on the Defendant’s vehicle, and the Defendant’s vehicle was at the wind to stop one’s own, and according to the aforementioned evidence, the Defendant’s vehicle, before reaching the point of the instant accident, runs ahead of the other vehicles at a rapid speed, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle also runs ahead of the other vehicles at a rapid speed.