1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with the Plaintiff’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) with respect to the vehicle B (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”), and the Defendant is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with the Plaintiff’s Intervenor with respect to the Dol New Airport vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).

B. At around 17:50 on November 30, 2016, C driven the Defendant vehicle and proceeded along the two lanes near sand market located in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, the two lanes near the sand market located in the Nam-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City, into a sand-resistant village shooting range, and changed the lanes into three lanes. On the other hand, C changed the lanes from four lanes in the same direction to three lanes, the part behind the left side of the Intervenor’s driver’s vehicle, who changed the lanes from four lanes in the same direction to three lanes, was shocked into the part behind the right side of the Defendant vehicle.

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

On December 30, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,664,00 to the Bupyeong M Treatment Business Office at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 3, each of Gap evidence 3 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The main point of the parties' arguments (i) the accident in this case is that the plaintiff's vehicle completed the change of the vehicle from four lanes to three lanes, and then the defendant vehicle tried to change the vehicle vehicle from three lanes to three lanes, which is prohibited from the change of the vehicle vehicle, and it was shocked on the back side of the plaintiff vehicle that was normally proceeding at three lanes, and it was difficult for the participant who is the plaintiff vehicle driver to predicting the change of the vehicle from the actual part prohibited from the change of the vehicle vehicle. Thus, the accident in this case is due to the previous negligence of C, the defendant vehicle driver.

However, for the Intervenor who is the insured of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the Plaintiff’s repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.