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 December 23, 2017, around 17:14, 2017, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driven along one lane on the three-lane road near the Southerndong-gu Incheon Metropolitan Home Town apartment. However, while the Defendant’s vehicle changed from the three-lane to the one-lane, there was an accident of collision with the Plaintiff’s vehicle that driven along the above mentioned above while the vehicle changed from the three-lane to the one-lane.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). On January 19, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,334,500 in total as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant’s vehicle is entirely responsible for the occurrence of the accident, since the accident occurred without examining whether the Defendant’s vehicle has a vehicle driven on the first lane without using the direction, etc., and the vehicle was driven on the first lane. Thus, the accident’s liability is entirely responsible for the Defendant’s vehicle.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the defendant's vehicle is responsible for the occurrence of the accident to the plaintiff's vehicle, since the vehicle entered the first lane by changing the vehicle line while driving slowly, and the plaintiff's vehicle is overspeed and neglected the front-time city, and the collision of the defendant's vehicle occurs.

Judgment

According to the above facts and each evidence, the defendant vehicle runs slowly without turning the direction direction, etc. on the three-lane road immediately before the point of the accident, and then changed the vehicle line into the one-lane. The plaintiff vehicle is found to have discovered the defendant vehicle changing the vehicle vehicle as above while driving in accordance with the one-lane, and there is a conflict between the driver's seat side of the vehicle of the defendant vehicle in front of the right edge of the plaintiff vehicle.

According to Articles 19(3) and 38 of the Road Traffic Act, the course of the vehicle is changed.