1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Claim.

1. Basic facts

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

On January 26, 2018, at the time of the accident, the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), the Defendant insured vehicle of the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) paid KRW 1,157,400,00 (self-motor vehicle damage) insurance money paid to the Plaintiff’s vehicle for an accident, which was directly on the front door part of the Defendant’s front door part of the Defendant vehicle, due to a three-distance collision situation near the entrance of the E apartment at the time of Chuncheon on January 12:55, 2018.

B. The judgment of the first instance court judged the fault ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle as 20:80, and calculated the Plaintiff’s amount of reimbursement as 925,920 won.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 9, 10 evidence and Eul 1 evidence and images

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the accident of this case occurred unfairly from the right-hand lane in violation of the non-protection stand-off provision, and thus, the defendant vehicle's fault ratio is 100%.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the accident of this case is 80% of the fault ratio of the defendant's vehicle, and that the judgment of the court of first instance is reasonable.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the argument in the video of the evidence No. 1, the fact that the defendant vehicle used a non-protective line within the distance of the location of the accident in this case, and the plaintiff vehicle, which was proceeding in this part, did not take preventive measures such as discovering that the defendant vehicle had already done a non-protective line, and the fact that the accident in this case occurred. Thus, if there are some circumstances of the accident, the accident in this case is due to the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle who neglected his duty of care before the non-protective line, and the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle who neglected his duty of safety driving.