1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The circumstances leading up to the instant accident are as follows.

At the time of the accident, the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle CD on June 16, 2018 at the time of the accident, when the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the situation of road collision near the express bus terminal in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul at the location of the above three-lanes, was moving into the three-lanes of the above location, and the Defendant’s vehicle driving in the same direction changed the three-lanes to the two-lanes to enter the expressway, and the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was shocked by the front side of the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle. The payment of the insurance money was made on July 2, 2018. The fact that there is no dispute over the damage of self-owned vehicle to be paid KRW 502,300 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the entry and video of the evidence No. 1 through 4, No. 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole.

2. Determination

A. According to the facts found in the above basic facts, and the overall purport of the evidence and arguments, although the driver of the defendant vehicle does not interfere with the passage of the plaintiff vehicle that was going in the direction of changing the course when the driver of the defendant vehicle changes the course, it seems that the driver attempted to change the course in an unreasonable manner or did not discover the plaintiff vehicle, and thus, it would lead to a conflict with the part on the side of the driver's seat of the plaintiff vehicle. On the other hand, the driver of the plaintiff vehicle could expect in advance that the driver of the defendant vehicle would change the course in an abnormal manner as above.

There is no evidence to deem that there was a possibility of avoiding the collision with the defendant vehicle or that there was a possibility of avoiding the collision with the defendant vehicle. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the accident in this case occurred due to the previous negligence of the defendant vehicle driver who violated the career change method

B. As to this, the Defendant is straighten by the Plaintiff’s driver without speed reduction measures.

The collision accident occurred, and the driver of the plaintiff vehicle could sufficiently find the defendant vehicle because there is no restriction on securing the view of the vehicle.