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. Basic facts

A. The circumstances surrounding the instant accident are as follows.

At the time of the accident, at around 23:15 December 2017, 2017 at the time of the insured vehicle CD of the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff insured vehicle, the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which changed from four lanes to three lanes in the same direction, while the vehicle under the situation of collision near the bus stops in the new-dong bus stops in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul at the location of the new-dong-dong, Seoul, was driving at the three lanes of the above road. As a result, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was shocked by the front line on the right side of the Defendant vehicle. As a result, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was parked in the front line of the Plaintiff vehicle, and KRW 4,814,950 (personal compensation).

B. The judgment of the first instance court judged the fault ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle 70:30, and calculated the Plaintiff’s amount of reimbursement as KRW 1,444,485.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant accident occurred between the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle’s breach of the duty of safe driving and the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. As such, the judgment of the first instance court that assessed the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle as 30% is reasonable. 2) The instant accident occurred by the former negligence, such as the Plaintiff’s breach of the duty of due care for change

B. The following circumstances recognized by the video in Gap evidence No. 5, and the driver of any motor vehicle is obliged not to change the course when it is likely to impede the normal traffic of other motor vehicles running in the direction to change the course of the motor vehicle, despite the duty not to change the course, the plaintiff's vehicle changed the lane without securing a sufficient distance from the defendant's motor vehicle running in the third lane above the other motor vehicle. ② The plaintiff's motor vehicle driving in the fourth lane at the time of the accident in this case discovered a taxi parked in the fourth lane and changed the lane into the third lane. The defendant's vehicle driving in the same direction is the plaintiff's attempt to change the lane as above.