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 insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On May 10, 2016, around 08:15, the Plaintiff’s vehicle traveling along the first lane of the third lane of the 413rd lane in the mid-gu Seoul Central Bank, Jung-gu, Seoul, and changed to the second lane. When the Defendant’s vehicle running on the third lane in the end of the road at the end of the horse at the time changed to the second lane, the Defendant’s vehicle running on the third lane in the above road at the end of the vehicle at the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the front side of the

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

On June 7, 2016, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 12,865,00 (excluding self-paid KRW 500,000) at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry and video of Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including branch numbers for those with a branch number) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The fault ratio of the original Defendant vehicle, and the driver of any motor vehicle shall not change the course when it is likely to impede the normal traffic of other motor vehicles running in the direction to change the course of the motor vehicle (Article 19(3) of the Road Traffic Act), and according to the overall purport of the facts of recognition and arguments, the accident in this case occurred due to the shock of the Plaintiff’s vehicle that changed the lanes from the three lanes to the two lanes, and the vehicle that changed the lanes from the first lane to the two lanes, and it is reasonable to deem that the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle, who neglected their duty of care to change the lanes safely, was committed concurrently.

However, in light of the background of the instant accident and the damaged parts of the Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s vehicle, the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the two-lane first, and thereafter, the instant accident occurred while Defendant’s vehicle entered the two-lane.