The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid contract with respect to C vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”). The Defendant is an insurer that entered into a motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to D vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

B. On November 12, 2018, at around 15:45, the Plaintiff’s vehicle changed the lane from the two lanes to the one lane in front of the fifth line of the building in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, the part on the left side of the front line of the Plaintiff’s vehicle running the said one lane as part of the front line of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On December 26, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,333,500 in total as medical expenses for F, G, H, I, and J, which was on board the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 10, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The evidence revealed as follows, i.e., the shock section of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle, both of which are the front driver, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle appears to have shocked the Defendant’s vehicle while trying to change the lane while driving almost in the Defendant’s vehicle. ② The Plaintiff’s vehicle appears to have attempted to change the lane without recognizing that the Defendant vehicle is driving on the first lane in the process of attempting to change the lane as above; ③ the vehicle’s course is likely to obstruct the normal passage of another vehicle running in the direction to change the vehicle (Article 19(3) of the Road Traffic Act), and the Plaintiff’s vehicle is not obliged to change the course when it is likely to interfere with the normal traffic of the vehicle running in the direction to change the vehicle’s course (Article 19(3) of the Road Traffic Act). In full view of the fact that the Plaintiff’s vehicle attempted to change the lane to the lane without considering the progress of the Defendant’s vehicle driving normally.