1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to C vehicles owned by B (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), and the Defendant is the driver of D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On October 2, 2014, around 17:15, 2014, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving and driving a two-lane among the three-lane roads adjacent to the Seodaemun-dong Broadcasting Station located adjacent to the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and attempted to change its course into one-lane, the part adjacent to the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle driving along the said one-lane at the time of the end was shocked into the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

On November 3, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 6,344,00 as insurance money.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry or video of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant’s assertion is found to have been negligent by neglecting the duty of care to drive defensively while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the front and rear of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. The Defendant’s negligence leads to 30% of the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the money stated in the claim amounting to 30% of the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

B. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the arguments on the evidence mentioned above, namely, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was almost stopped before the Plaintiff’s vehicle attempted to change its course into one lane, and on the contrary, the Defendant’s vehicle was proceeding toward the intersection to turn to the left pursuant to the new line. The difference in speed of the two vehicles appears to have been very difficult at the time when the Plaintiff’s vehicle attempted to change its course into one lane due to the difference in speed between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle, and therefore, the Defendant operated a witness to change the course of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

Even if it seems that it would be difficult to avoid collision.