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

B. On February 18, 2017, around 18:35, the driver of the Defendant vehicle changed the three lanes from three lanes to two lanes from three lanes in the direction of the design and high school to two lanes in the direction of the electric direction, while driving the three lanes from among the four lanes in the direction of the design and high school. The driver of the Defendant vehicle changed the two lanes from the three lanes to the two lanes in the direction of the electric direction, and shocked the front part of the Plaintiff vehicle’s right side and the front part of the front part and the pent.

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

On March 28, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,994,230 as insurance money for the instant accident.

【Unsatisfied Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s instant accident occurred due to the Plaintiff’s gross negligence that caused the Defendant’s vehicle to rapidly change its course from three lanes to two lanes in an area in which the change of course is prohibited, while the Plaintiff’s vehicle was in a two-lane normal driving. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the total insurance money paid by the Plaintiff

B. Defendant vehicle used direction direction direction, etc. in a zone where change of course is permitted, and attempted to change course on a full scale, but the Plaintiff vehicle contributed to the occurrence of the instant accident by accelerating the Plaintiff vehicle without driving the concession, and thus, it should take account of 30% of the Plaintiff vehicle’s fault due to the Plaintiff’s breach of the duty of safe operation duty.

3. Determination

A. According to the evidence and the overall purport of the pleadings, the following facts may be acknowledged, and contrary thereto, the partial entry of No. 8 in the evidence is not believed.