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. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurance company that entered into each automobile insurance contract with respect to the A-to-pubed vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff-to-pubed vehicle”), and the Defendant is an insurance company that entered into each automobile insurance contract with respect to the B-to-pubed vehicle

B. On October 28, 2017, the driver of the Defendant vehicle driving the Defendant vehicle and driving the two-lanes of the road front of the Cwork Station at Changwon-si, without turning the direction direction, etc., and entered the three-lanes of the right-hand side of the Defendant vehicle, and the driver of the Defendant vehicle driving the Defendant vehicle, without turning the direction direction, conflicts with the left-hand side of the Plaintiff vehicle driving the three-lanes above the right-hand side of the Defendant vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On November 23, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,500,000 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident to the D Office, with the insurance proceeds for the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap's evidence 1 to 9 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above recognition of the liability for damages, the driver of the defendant vehicle operated a direction-setting, etc. to change the lane and notified the change of course in advance, and the situation of traffic before and after the change, and thereby changing the lane, the accident of this case occurred in violation of this provision.

In the event that the instant accident occurred due to the negligence of the Defendant’s driver, the Defendant, the insurance company of the Defendant, is liable to compensate the owner of the Plaintiff’s vehicle directly pursuant to Article 10(1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act and Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act, and the Plaintiff is subrogated to the claim for damages against the Defendant by the Plaintiff’

B. The Defendant asserts that the instant accident constituted competition between the Plaintiff’s failure to perform the duty of care on the front side of the Plaintiff vehicle, and that the Defendant’s liability should be limited in consideration of the negligence of the Plaintiff vehicle.

However, according to the images of Gap evidence No. 9.