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. Facts of recognition;

A. With respect to A and B vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with C (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On September 6, 2013, the Defendant’s driver drivened the Defendant’s vehicle at around 19:40 minutes, driving the Defendant’s vehicle on the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle running four-lanes of the four-lanes from the bend side of the bend line in the ebbbbbbs in the Goyang-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu. In attempting to change the lane, the part on the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving the four-lanes of the four-lanes from the bend side of the ebsp

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

After paying KRW 3,867,00 of the insurance money, the Defendant filed a claim for deliberation on the dispute of indemnity with the committee for deliberation on the dispute of indemnity, and the committee for deliberation on indemnity amount determined the ratio of liability for the instant accident to Defendant 90% and Plaintiff 10%.

On March 31, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 386,700 to the Defendant according to the above decision.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case occurred only due to the unilateral negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle, and that the amount of indemnity paid to the defendant according to the decision of the committee for deliberation on disputes over indemnity premised on the plaintiff's responsibility is not a legal ground. Thus, the defendant should return the above amount to the plaintiff.

According to the purport of the argument as a whole, the accident of this case occurred in the part where the safety zone signs that come between the roads are almost finished, at the location of the two-lane road. The defendant vehicle's vehicle, which was going on to combine the roads, has attempted to change the lanes beyond the safety zone between the roads. Accordingly, the accident of this case is the driver of the defendant vehicle.