1. On August 11, 2014, traffic accidents occurred during the operation of B vehicles in the vicinity of Shak-dong, Seo-gu, Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 11, 2014, at around 13:00 on August 11, 2014, C driven the B Oralba (hereinafter “Plaintiff Oralba”), which entered into an automobile insurance with the Plaintiff, and proceeded along three lanes between the four lanes near Shackk-dong, Seo-gu, Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon, along the two lanes, and changed the two lanes, C was shocked on the front part of the D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) of the Defendant’s driving who was proceeding for the Uton at the end of U.S. as a result of the U.S. signal, with the front part of the U.S. vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

As a result of the instant accident, the Defendant paid KRW 1,752,00 for the repair cost for the Defendant’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 2, the result of the verification by this court, the fact-finding results on the Daejeonsan Police Station of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff argues that the defendant's negligence in the accident of this case constitutes 90%, and the defendant suffered a loss equivalent to 1,970,000 won for repair, and that the plaintiff's obligation to pay insurance money to the defendant in relation to the accident of this case does not exceed 197,00 won.

B. The defendant asserts that the accident of this case occurred in the course of the defendant's excessive bypassing, so there is no negligence on the part of the defendant.

3. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as a whole by adding up the description of Eul evidence No. 2 and the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the verification by this court, the following circumstances: (a) C is shocked with the Defendant of the horse when driving the Plaintiff Lao and driving the Plaintiff Seab and driving the Plaintiff at the intersection at the intersection, and changing the fleet to the two lanes; (b) the point where the Plaintiff Lao changed the lane to the two lanes, is included within the U.S. scope of U.S.; and (c) the Defendant, starting the internship at the U.S. point and proceeding the Defendant’s vehicle to the opposite line.