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 entered into a comprehensive insurance contract for business cars with respect to A car (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a corporation that owns B express bus B (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. At around 17:30 on April 7, 2015, the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped in the vicinity of the 8km in the west-gu New East-dong Highway (hereinafter “non-party vehicle”) around the 17:30-lane in the west-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the vehicle stopped on the two-lane in the process of changing the vehicle to the two-lane (hereinafter “non-party vehicle”) and the vehicle stopped on the front side of the driver’s seat of the Plaintiff vehicle (hereinafter “the first accident”) and stopped on the two-lane immediately after the instant accident. The Defendant’s vehicle driving the two-lane in the after side of the Defendant vehicle, which was completely stopped in the front part of the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter “the second accident”).

By May 26, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 16,385,00 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the repair cost of the portion remaining behind the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which occurred due to the second accident, is KRW 15,083,890.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including branch numbers if there are several numbers)

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the driver of the defendant vehicle, who is a large passenger vehicle, is negligent in failing to observe the designated lane at the time of the second accident and neglecting to do so, and it is reasonable to view the fault ratio of the plaintiff vehicle and the defendant vehicle 60:40. Thus, the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiff the indemnity amount equivalent to 40% of the repair cost of the previous part and the delay damages.

In regard to this, the defendant is that the second accident occurred due to the suspension of the plaintiff's vehicle from the expressway to the rapid operation on the expressway.