1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Basic Facts

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

On November 12, 2017, Goyang-gu lake around 12:20, Goyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, 26-30, is running across the center of the road near the 26-30th road.

In other words, there was a collision between the plaintiff's vehicle and the defendant's vehicle driving in the latter side of the vehicle that changed the vehicle line into one lane (hereinafter "the accident in this case").

From November 28, 2017 to January 11, 2018, the Plaintiff, as the insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, paid KRW 3,847,200, excluding KRW 353,800 of the Plaintiff’s automobile repair cost of KRW 4,201,00 according to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff asserted that the accident in this case occurred because the defendant's vehicle failed to secure the safety distance and failed to do so, and the defendant's vehicle failed to do so. The plaintiff asserted that the accident in this case occurred.

As to this, the defendant is driving in the opposite part of the central line.

The Plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence of the Plaintiff vehicle that changed the vehicle line into one lane.

Judgment

According to Article 13 (3) of the Road Traffic Act, the driver of any motor vehicle shall pass along the center (if a median line is marked, the center line thereof) of the road, and according to Article 19 (3) of the same Act, the driver of any motor vehicle shall not change its course when it is apprehended to impede normal traffic of other motor vehicles running in the direction to which he/she intends to change his/her route.

However, according to the video of Gap evidence 6, the road in which the accident of this case occurred is not properly installed in the construction section, but the floor which performs the function of the tea line.