1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded the automobile insurance contract with D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. Around 12:00 on November 21, 2017, the Plaintiff’s vehicle is proceeding two lanes in front of the F point located in the Ma-gu, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, into a G school room in the ethical basin. On the other hand, in order to make a U-turn in the four-lane, an accident occurred that conflicts between the two parts in front of the left-hand part of the Defendant’s vehicle and the part below the front door of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which changed the fleet into one lane, in order to make a U-turn in the fourth lane.

(hereinafter referred to as "the accident of this case". (c)

On December 5, 2017, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 1,427,430 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 5, entry of Eul evidence 4, partial entry of Eul evidence 4, Gap evidence 2, 3, video of Eul evidence 2 and the purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the accident in this case occurred not only in the movement of the plaintiff vehicle but also in the same way in the four-lanes but also in the one-lanes from the other. In light of the driving route of the defendant vehicle as above and the shock level of each vehicle, it is difficult to expect that the driver of the plaintiff vehicle would make the change of the vehicle in this case unreasonable way from the four-lanes to the one-lanes.

On the other hand, the defendant argued that since the driver of the plaintiff vehicle was involved in a continuous driving at the time of the accident of this case, it should be considered as the driver's negligence, but the evidence alone is insufficient to recognize it.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the instant accident occurred by the negligence of the driver of the Defendant vehicle.

3. Accordingly, the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff as the amount of indemnity KRW 1,427,430 and its payment date from December 6, 2017.