1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with the EMW vehicle owned by D (hereinafter “Plaintiff”). The Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with the Franchi vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”), and the Co-Defendant C of the first instance trial is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with the GM6 vehicle (hereinafter “SM6 vehicle”).

B. On November 17, 2017, around 22:37, the Defendant vehicle stops in the vicinity of the IMF in Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, in a three-lane. When it is impossible to drive a three-lane due to buses, automobiles, etc. parked around the road, the vehicle has been changed in the direction of the two-lane in order to drive the road. Accordingly, the MF6 vehicle traveling along the two-lane, while changing the vehicle into the one-lane, was rapidly stopped while changing the vehicle into the one-lane, and the subsequent vehicle was proceeding without finding a sudden stop of the MF6 vehicle. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was driven thereafter, was shocked by the front side of the Plaintiff vehicle and the MF6 rear side of the MF6 vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On January 30, 2018, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 9,800,000 at the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

(other than KRW 500,000). [Reasons for recognition] / [Grounds for Recognition] / Each entry, film or video set forth in Gap's No. 1, 3 through 7, 10, 11, and Eul's No. 2 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 Plaintiff’s driver, who is the Defendant vehicle, has been negligent in neglecting such duty of care despite the duty to properly examine the progress of the vehicle in the lane intended to change the vehicle vehicle. The MF6 vehicle driver was negligent in changing the vehicle without operating the direction direction, and the accident of this case occurred by negligence.

Since it is reasonable to view that the negligence of the defendant vehicle and the SM6 driver is 50% jointly and severally, the defendant who is the insurer of the defendant vehicle shall be the first instance court.