1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into the automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On June 27, 2015, around 15:34, 2015, the Defendant’s vehicle proceeding the front of the Masan-si, Annsan-si C in front of the two-lanes along the two-lanes from the distance of the terminal company to the intersection of movable property, and the vehicle rapidly changed the vehicle to the one-lane, resulting in a collision with the bus running in the same direction, and was accelerated from the two-lanes.

C. While the Plaintiff’s vehicle was in operation after the bus, the bus was changed to a two-lane to avoid a collision with the bus due to the foregoing accident, and the bus was in operation after the bus, and the bus was in conflict with the latter.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). D.

On July 14, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,109,000 to the owner of the Plaintiff’s vehicle as repair cost.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 9, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant's fault ratio of the accident of this case is 20%, while the defendant asserted that the accident of this case was issued by the whole negligence of the plaintiff's vehicle, so the defendant's vehicle does not bear any liability.

B. According to the facts of the above recognition, if the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle maintains the safety distance and complies with the duty of front-time watch, it would be deemed that the accident in this case would be avoided or the damage would be reduced. However, the plaintiff's vehicle is in conflict with the defendant's vehicle while changing the vehicle in order to avoid a collision with the bus rapid due to the accident caused by the defendant's vehicle, and in light of the circumstances and degree of the accident in this case, it is appropriate to determine the fault ratio of the defendant's vehicle in the accident in this case as 20%.

Therefore, the defendant.