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 concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On August 2, 2018, around 08:45, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was in a straight line along the three lanes near the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seo-dong. Around the fourth-lane to the third-lane of the said road, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was shocked by the Defendant’s vehicle (business taxi) who stopped to board customers on the crosswalk by changing the vehicle from the fourth to the third-lane to the third-lane on the crosswalk.

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

On September 28, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,520,00,00, after deducting KRW 500,000 of the self-paid cost from the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. At the time of the instant accident, the Defendant’s vehicle was parked in order to board customers immediately after the change of the vehicle, and the accident of this case occurred because the Plaintiff’s vehicle was not found due to the occurrence of the instant accident. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the instant accident was caused by the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle, and that the ratio of negligence was 30:70.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 3,164,00 and delay damages for the amount of KRW 4,520,000, which is equivalent to 70% of the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff.

B. The instant accident occurred due to the total negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle that took place without securing safety distance.

3. Determination

A. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by adding the evidence and the purport of the entire arguments as seen earlier, which are acknowledged prior to the ratio of negligence, are ① the Plaintiff’s vehicle could keep the process of changing the Defendant’s vehicle. However, the Plaintiff’s vehicle not only violated the duty of prior explanation.