1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the E AV car (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), and the Defendant is the driver of FK3 vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. Around 15:00 on June 23, 2013, the Defendant driving the Defendant’s vehicle, and proceeding five lanes from the 88 Olympic Expressway, which is located in the 77-dong, Gangdong-gu, Gangdong-gu, Seoul, in the direction of U.S. in the direction of U.S. at the vicinity of the five-lane of the 88 Olympic Expressway.

In the course of changing the course into a four-lane due to the decline of the lane, the front front front front front front front front front front front front of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was driven in the four-lane, conflict with the front front front front front front front front front front front front front front front front front front front part of the Defendant’s vehicle. In the meantime, while the Defendant’s vehicle changed to a three-lane, the front front front front front part of the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s Gtoscar car (hereinafter “Non-Party”), which was driven in the three-lane, was shocked with the front front front front part of the Defendant vehicle.

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

Until July 9, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,540,70,00 in total, and KRW 840,70,00 in repair costs of Nonparty 3,70,700 in repair costs of Nonparty 4,540,70.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 14, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5 through 7, 26, and 35, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case occurred due to the plaintiff's change of the lane to the four-lane where the plaintiff's vehicle was in progress on the side, and thus, the plaintiff asserted that the accident in this case occurred due to the plaintiff's total negligence, and sought payment of insurance money and damages for delay therefor. Accordingly, the defendant's accident in this case is an accident where the plaintiff's auxiliary participant C, who is the plaintiff's driver, overlaps with the defendant's negligence unreasonably, and the fault of the plaintiff's vehicle is about 50%, and the cost of repair of the non-party's vehicle paid by the plaintiff is excessive, and thus it is impossible