1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On May 26, 2015, around 12:10 on May 26, 2015, the Plaintiff’s vehicle runs along the three-lane road near Sungsan-dong, Mapo-gu, Seoul, to the boundary of a light high school. On the other hand, while changing the two-lane, the Plaintiff’s vehicle proceeds along the three-lane of the above-lane road at the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and then changed the two-lane from the front side to the two-lane, and then the back wheels part of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was straight, was shocked into the front side part of the Plaintiff’s right side.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On July 1, 2015, the Plaintiff paid the insurance money of KRW 409,660 under the pretext of the repair cost for the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Based on recognition] The items of Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including paper numbers), the purpose of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff's vehicle was changed first into a two-lane, and the half or more of the body of the defendant vehicle was changed from the third to the second two-lane, and the plaintiff vehicle was shocked by the plaintiff vehicle while changing the two-lanes. Thus, the accident in this case occurred due to the plaintiff's negligence in driving between the plaintiff vehicle and the defendant vehicle that changed the two-lanes as above. Thus, the defendant is obliged to pay to the plaintiff 204,830 won, which is equivalent to 50% of the fault ratio of the defendant vehicle out of the above insurance proceeds, and damages for delay.

The defendant asserts that the negligence ratio of the plaintiff's vehicle affected by the accident in this case is more than 90% since the plaintiff's vehicle is found to be late and the vehicle was rapidly changed to a two-lane, and the defendant's vehicle that had already entered the two-lane.

(b) judgment;