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 a driver of BM5 vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a motor vehicle insurance contract with C and D Lastren vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On April 20, 2015, the Plaintiff driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle on April 20, 2011:10, while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the port north-gu E, one-lane in the immediately preceding two-lane distance intersection, and the Defendant’s vehicle driven by C was in the signal atmosphere behind the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

Plaintiff

When the vehicle starts with the straight signal and passes through the intersection by driving along the one-lane side of the width where the lane has increased, the defendant vehicle also driven to the left-hand left-hand side of the vehicle and the collision between the part of the defendant vehicle and the left-hand side of the vehicle of the plaintiff vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the "accident in this case"), and the vehicle of the plaintiff was damaged to the extent that the repair cost of KRW 946,196 was damaged.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, 5, Eul evidence 2 (including branch numbers in the case of additional evidence) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. At the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was proceeding in one lane, and the Defendant’s vehicle was trying to enter a new one-lane by passing through a safety zone where entry is prohibited. As the instant accident occurred, there was no fault of the Plaintiff.

B. At the time of the instant accident asserted by the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was proceeding in two lanes, and the Defendant’s vehicle was proceeding in one lane, but both of the two vehicles intended to change the course into one lane, and the instant accident occurred. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s negligence, rather than the negligence of the Defendant’s driver, is larger than the negligence of the Defendant’s driver.

3. Determination

A. According to the above fact of recognition that the obligation to pay insurance proceeds has occurred, the driver C of the Defendant vehicle was the Plaintiff’s vehicle preceding the intersection where the lane increase.