The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of the claim.

1. The circumstances leading up to the instant accident are as follows.

On July 6, 2019, July 16, 2019, when the insured vehicle CD of the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff at the time of the accident, the situation of the collision on the 6 lane roads in front of the building in Suwon-si E-gu, Suwon-si (hereinafter “instant road”), where the Plaintiff’s vehicle was proceeding along the three lanes of the instant road, the instant accident occurred, where the lower part of the Defendant’s vehicle changed from the five lanes to the three lanes of the instant road, and the front part of the Plaintiff’s right side of the vehicle, etc. The instant accident occurred. The amount of the insurance money payment is KRW 1,255,780,000 on August 12, 2019 on the date of the final payment of the insurance money in KRW 20,00,000, the amount of the insurance money to be paid, and there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s subparagraphs 1 through 7, 9, 10, and No. 4 through 6 of video oral proceedings as a whole.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s instant accident occurred with the wind of the Defendant’s driver to change the lanes from five lanes to three lanes. From the standpoint of the Plaintiff’s driver, the Defendant’s vehicle could not be anticipated to have changed the lanes. As such, the Plaintiff’s driver did not have been negligent, and the Defendant’s driver’s negligence should be recognized.

B. At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s driver was also able to expect the Plaintiff’s vehicle to change the course to the front section of the instant vehicle because the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driven along the front section at considerable intervals, and thus, the Plaintiff’s driver was negligent in failing to perform his duty of care to ensure that the Defendant’s driver is able to operate the vehicle with the front section of the instant vehicle, compared to the possibility that the Defendant’s vehicle might change its course while driving the direction.

3. Determination

A. According to the above basic facts, the accident of this case violates the method of changing lanes and two lanes.