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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the driver of the B-End vehicle B (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with D, the driver of the C-Edar vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”)

B. At around 18:30 on January 26, 2017, D, while driving the Defendant’s vehicle and driving from the intersection of Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, U.S. along the training center, entered the same four-lane bypassing it to the three-lane distance from the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Busan. On the other hand, there was an accident that conflict with the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, U.S. in accordance with the new subparagraph (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On February 3, 2017, the Plaintiff spent KRW 564,111 as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

【Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 8 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(i) each entry and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In full view of the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the evidence as mentioned above, the result of the instant court’s examination of the motion picture images, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the instant accident ought to be deemed to have been caused by the negligence of changing the lane toward the median line immediately without operating the direction, etc., without being negligent in giving due attention to the movement of the Defendant vehicle on the right-hand side while bypassing the vehicle.

However, according to the collision part of each vehicle and each of the above evidence, the plaintiff vehicle could recognize the fact that it could sufficiently recognize the defendant vehicle going ahead of that vehicle to the three-distance distance from the mountain park located on the side of the mountain park located on the side of the mountain park in which it was located, and even if it was possible to fully recognize the defendant vehicle going ahead of that vehicle, the plaintiff's negligence, in addition to the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle, also contributed to the occurrence and expansion of the accident of this case.