1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

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

B. Around 10:30 on May 26, 2015, the Plaintiff’s vehicle is proceeding one lane in the front of the Defendant’s vehicle, while the Defendant’s vehicle, which was stopped on the three-lane, continued to change the one lane to drive a Uton. In order for the U.S. vehicle, the lower part of the Defendant’s front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle running the one lane was shocked with the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle.

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

On November 16, 2015, the Motor Vehicle Indemnity Dispute Deliberation Committee decided the ratio of the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the instant accident to 10%, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 160,410 to the Defendant on December 9, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. At the time of the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion, even though the road, which is the place where the instant accident occurred, was a U-turn prohibited section, there was an accident in which the Defendant’s vehicle attempted to her U-turn while crossinging two lanes consecutively, and as the Plaintiff’s driver, it is impossible for the Defendant’s vehicle to anticipate that the Defendant’s vehicle will run along the two lanes as above, and thus, the instant accident occurred by the unilateral negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle.

Therefore, the defendant should return to the plaintiff 160,410 won paid by the plaintiff according to the deliberation and resolution as unjust gains.

B. In other words, it should have been confirmed whether there is no other vehicle in progress in the direction of changing the ordinary lane in the following circumstances, which have been recognized by taking into account the above basic facts, the evidence as mentioned above, and all the circumstances indicated in the record, but the Defendant vehicle continues to be one lane from three lanes to one lane without such verification.