1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal between the Plaintiff and the Defendant are due to the Plaintiff’s participation in the appeal.

Facts of recognition

The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a mutual aid agreement on the Plaintiff’s vehicle B (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”), and the Defendant is an insurer that entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract on the Defendant’s vehicle C (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).

The Intervenor joining the Plaintiff (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

At around 13:10 on December 5, 2016, the Defendant’s vehicle changed the two lanes to the first way in the direction of the distance of the school road in the direction of the city-dong bankruptcy park in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, which led to the change of the two lanes to the second way in the direction of the distance of the school road in the direction of the private road in Gangnam-gu, Seoul. In the course of the first way of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the area left ahead of the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the course of driving

(hereinafter “instant accident”). On January 5, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 551,00 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff asserted that the items of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including the number of pages) and images, the entire purport of arguments, and the purport of judgment parties' arguments, and the accident of this case is caused by the unilateral negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle, as it occurred while the plaintiff's vehicle was normally proceeding at the first lane, while the vehicle was normally proceeding at the first lane.

The defendant asserts that the driver of the plaintiff vehicle is at least 20% of the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle without considering the progress of the vehicle.

Judgment

A driver of any motor vehicle shall not change course when it is likely to impede normal traffic of other motor vehicles running in the direction to which he/she intends to change course (Article 19(3) of the Road Traffic Act). In light of the fact that, at the time of the accident of this case, the motor vehicle of this case conflicts with the right side of the motor vehicle of the plaintiff while the motor vehicle of this case was moving back to the left side of the motor vehicle of the motor vehicle of this case.