1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”).

B. On June 5, 2019, the Defendant driven D (hereinafter “Defendant”) around 08:10, and driven three lanes in the five lanes in the 27-lane as Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul. On June 5, 2019, the Defendant shocked the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving along the two-lane.

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

On July 22, 2019, the Plaintiff paid the Plaintiff’s driver KRW 1,779,670, excluding KRW 200,000 of the Plaintiff’s self-paid cost at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3 and 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff asserts that the instant accident occurred due to the shocking of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was parked from the three-lanes to the two-lanes, by changing the two-lanes to the two-lanes, and thus the Defendant’s driver asserts that the Defendant’s driver is fully responsible for the instant accident, and thus, the Plaintiff’s reimbursement for the total amount of the insurance proceeds paid by the Plaintiff against the Defendant.

(2) As to this, the Defendant asserts that the instant accident occurred due to the sudden change of the Plaintiff’s vehicle from the two lanes to the three lanes, and that the driver’s negligence of the Plaintiff is more than 80%.

B. (1) The following circumstances are revealed in addition to the purport of the entire argument in the evidence as seen earlier, namely, ① the Plaintiff’s driver of the instant vehicle was erroneous in attempting to change the course rapidly from the two-lanes to the three-lanes of the place where the instant accident occurred; ② the Plaintiff’s driver’s sudden change in the course appears to be the main cause of the instant accident; ③ Meanwhile, the Defendant, even though the Plaintiff’s vehicle was in progress as a prior vehicle, did not secure the safety distance.