1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

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

B. On June 16, 2017, at around 20:45, the Plaintiff’s vehicle is proceeding in the direction of both sub-IC, along the two-lanes near the Cridge of the Cridge of the Shiamamamamamamb, in the direction of the inside of both sub-IC, while the Defendant’s vehicle, while changing the vehicle from the front section of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the three-lanes from the two-lane to the three-lanes, was changing the vehicle from the front section of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the part of the back part of the Defendant’s vehicle was stiffed.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

Until July 24, 2017, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 1,138,540,00 to the Defendant’s Dong-based employees, who were injured due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred in competition between the negligence of the Plaintiff’s driver and the Plaintiff’s driver’s negligence at the Defendant’s driver’s fault at a sudden rate after the rapid change of the vehicle, despite the possibility of hindering the Plaintiff’s normal passage of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and thus, the Defendant is liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 341,560, which is equivalent to 30% of the fault ratio of the Defendant’s driver, out of the insurance money paid to the Plaintiff

B. In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the instant accident occurred after the completion of the change of the vehicle line of the Defendant vehicle, in light of the shock parts of the original Defendant vehicle caused by the instant accident, and ② the Defendant vehicle driver changed the vehicle line to three lanes, leaving the front door door of the vehicle after the change of the vehicle line.