1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded the automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On September 26, 2015, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle on September 23:20, 2015, proceeding one-lane between the two-lanes in the section of the steering point in the section of the steering line that enters the intersection outside Seoul, which entered the intersection outside Seoul, from the river outside the Seoul, in order to change the two-lane, while the driver attempted to change the two-lane, the part of the driver’s seat of the Defendant’s vehicle driving along the two-lane in the same direction was shocked with the front front wheels of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

On October 16, 2015, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 827,290 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4 through 6, 8, Eul evidence or video evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case occurred by the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle who did not sufficiently secure the safety distance while overtaking the plaintiff vehicle and the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle. The above negligence ratio of the defendant vehicle is about 50%. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the accident in this case occurred by the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle who changed the vehicle vehicle excessively.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence revealed earlier, the instant accident did not perform the duty of safety driving, such as reducing the speed, even though the Plaintiff’s driver’s negligence, who failed to perform the duty of due care, so as not to obstruct the passage of the vehicle driving on the lane to be changed at night while changing the lane, and even though the Plaintiff’s vehicle was aware of the change of the lane while continuing the valley at night, it did not perform the duty of safety driving, such as reducing the speed.