1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to C vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”). The Defendant is a mutual aid business entity who entered into an automobile mutual aid contract with respect to D vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

B. On July 7, 2018, according to the long-term Olympic Winter Games in the city of Kimpo-si, 13:25, the Plaintiff’s vehicle moved three lanes among the three lanes in the Do to Kimpo-section, and changed the two lanes into the two lanes. The Defendant’s vehicle, which was moving from the two lanes in the same direction, was shocked into the back part of the driver’s seat of the Plaintiff vehicle, was shocked into the front front part of the Defendant vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On August 10, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,552,30,00 as insurance money after deducting KRW 387,00 of the self-paid cost for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. (1) The plaintiff asserts that at the time of the accident in this case, the driver of the defendant vehicle has a duty to pay the indemnity amount of KRW 1,552,30,610 (= KRW 1,552,300 x 0.7) of the defendant vehicle's insurance money paid by the plaintiff because the defendant vehicle at the time of the accident in this case was at the time of the accident in the area where the driver's failure to secure the safety distance was negligent because the driver neglected to drive the previous vehicle at front time due to driving, etc., although he could have sufficiently anticipated the change of the lanes of the road in which the accident in this case occurred, even though he could have been able to expect the change of the lanes of the road in which the vehicle in this case occurred, the driver of the defendant vehicle in this case was at the time of the accident in this case.

(2) At the time of the instant accident, the Defendant, at the time of the instant accident, had the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle changed the course to the direction without operating the direction direction, etc., and continued to move back simultaneously with the change of course.