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. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance policy with respect to A vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”). The Defendant is the insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance policy with respect to B vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

B. On September 8, 2014, at around 20:06, C driven the Defendant’s vehicle and proceeded with the highest level of the distribution bridge in front of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D along with the first line of the second line of the second line of the distribution intersection, from the distance of the mother hospital to the distribution intersection, and the first line was set, and the second line was changed to the second line, and the lower part of the back portion of the Plaintiff’s left side of the E-driving, which was proceeding the second line on the side while changing to the second line, was shocked with the front part of the Defendant’s right side.

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

On September 30, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 493,300 as insurance money for the damage of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries or images of Gap evidence 1 through 10 (including branch numbers) and the purport of whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. According to the above fact of recognition of liability for damages, the defendant vehicle has a duty of care to change its course so that it does not interfere with the progress of another vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's moving on the direction direction when changing the vehicle's vehicle, and thus, caused the accident of this case which conflicts with the back part of the left side of the plaintiff vehicle. Thus, the defendant, who is the insurer of the defendant vehicle, is obliged to pay 493,300 won of the insurance money paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff.

B. As to the Defendant’s claim on limitation of liability, when the Defendant finds that the Plaintiff’s vehicle as the Plaintiff finds an attempt to change the vehicle line, the Defendant finds the Defendant’s vehicle using direction direction, etc. and finds the Defendant’s vehicle changing the vehicle line in full despite the duty of care to safely drive the vehicle by allowing the entry of the vehicle, but also prevents the change of the vehicle line.