1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with B (hereinafter “Defendant”).

On September 4, 2015, the Defendant’s vehicle was driving two lanes as the Olympic Games near the Nowon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Labor Market on September 15:50, 2015 at the seat of the Kimpo Airport as a comprehensive playground. While changing the lane, the Plaintiff’s right-hand even part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle proceeding in the process of changing the lane was shocked into the left-hand part of the front speed of the Defendant vehicle.

On April 26, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,016,000 insurance money at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

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

2. Summary of both claims;

A. The Plaintiff: The instant accident occurred on the wind that the Defendant’s vehicle driven behind the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which had been driven by the lower side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, in a unreasonable manner, and the replacement of the vehicle was carried out.

Therefore, the accident of this case is caused by the total negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle.

Accordingly, the defendant's reimbursement of KRW 1,016,00 is sought.

B. Defendant: Defendant’s vehicle entered the two lanes to one lane; Defendant’s vehicle entered the two lanes, and the instant accident occurred at the wind that the subsequent Plaintiff’s vehicle enters and leaves without concession.

Therefore, the accident in this case occurred both by negligence, and the plaintiff's claim for indemnity amount corresponding to the ratio of negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle is without merit.

3. The Plaintiff’s vehicle is the Defendant on the first lane immediately before the accident in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, i.e., the location and shock of the vehicle appearing in the photograph taken immediately after the accident.