1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with respect to A Private Taxi (hereinafter “Plaintiff”). The Defendant is an insurer that entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with respect to B (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On March 28, 2015, around 16:35, the Defendant’s vehicle moved bypassing to the bank of the Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency in the vicinity of the road along the three-lanes of the said three-lanes, and subsequently, the Defendant’s vehicle overtakens the Defendant’s vehicle to the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle running along the two-lanes of the said road while driving along the right side of the said road, and then the pent part was shocked to the front part of the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On April 8, 2015, with respect to the instant accident, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,676,000 as the repair cost for the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings that occurred prior to the occurrence of the duty of recourse prohibition, the instant accident occurred when the Defendant’s vehicle completed the right-hand line in the same direction and changed the vehicle from three lanes to two lanes of the Plaintiff’s vehicle without properly examining the driving behavior of the Plaintiff’s vehicle that was driven at the two-lanes of the front direction, and the Plaintiff’s right-hand side of the vehicle was shocked. As such, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the above insurance money and damages for delay incurred by the Plaintiff in relation to the instant accident caused by the previous negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle.

B. As to the defendant's assertion, the defendant should have tried to pass the defendant's vehicle after completing the entry into the right-hand road while properly examining the behavior of the defendant's vehicle that the driver of the plaintiff vehicle had been preceding the three-lane in the right-hand direction. However, it is unreasonable to make the plaintiff's vehicle's right-hand direction.