1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is borne by the Defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to ATB car (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the owner of B bus (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and the user of the Defendant vehicle.

B. On August 27, 2017, around 18:40 on August 27, 2017, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven along the five-lane radius in the vicinity of the Gandong Kimpo Airport in Gangseo-gu, Gangseo-gu, Seoul, along the five-lane radius. The driver of the Defendant’s vehicle driven the Defendant’s vehicle with the part that combines the two-lane from five-lane to four-lane, while driving the Defendant’s vehicle, and facing the front part of the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in front of the left side of

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

On September 29, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,208,000 as insurance money due to the instant accident to the business place in which two automobiles were repaired by the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 1 and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The following circumstances are recognized by the overall purport of each film and pleading in the evidence No. 4-1, No. 4-2, No. 5, and No. 5, and No. 1, and the following circumstances are met: (a) the white line between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the four-lane in which the Plaintiff’s vehicle proceeds after the decline; (b) the Plaintiff’s vehicle is completely combined with the four-lane in which the width of the lane is reduced; (c) while proceeding four-lanes, the white line passes along the above while driving at the above point; and (d) the Defendant’s vehicle is driving at the above point with a white line, and the lower part of the Plaintiff’s right side of the front vehicle, which is the front part of the Defendant’s left side of the front vehicle, are shocked. Accordingly, the Defendant’s vehicle does not secure the safety distance between the Plaintiff’s previous vehicle and the front vehicle while driving at a different lane.