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. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with A and B (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with C (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On May 28, 2016, around 12:40, there was an accident that shocks the back portion of the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle running two-lanes into the front right side of the Defendant’s vehicle running in the same direction at the intersection near the Namdong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Construction Technology Education Center (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On June 17, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,299,400 to A at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in accordance with the said insurance contract.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 8, Eul evidence 1

2. In cases of intending to change course of a motor vehicle, no driver of any motor vehicle in his/her judgment shall 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 his/her route (Article 19 (3) of the Road Traffic Act) and no driver of any cross

(3) Article 22(3)1 of the Road Traffic Act (Article 22(3) of the Road Traffic Act). In light of the circumstances leading up to an accident and shock, which are acknowledged by the purport of the entire pleadings, the instant accident appears to have occurred in the course of changing the vehicle to the two-lane at the intersection. Accordingly, the Defendant vehicle driver caused the instant accident by negligence in violation of the duty of prohibition of passing a vehicle in the intersection and the duty of prohibition of interference at the time of changing the vehicle’s course. On the other hand, the Plaintiff vehicle driver was determined to have not been able to expect or avoid the Defendant vehicle’s change to the vehicle’s lane to the vehicle’s front left side of the Plaintiff vehicle. Thus, the instant accident is unreasonable for the Defendant vehicle driver to change the vehicle line at the intersection.