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. On August 5, 2017, at around 16:10, the Plaintiff’s vehicle is proceeding three lanes, among three lanes in the Eastern Line in Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, as a Cheongdog Bridge, from the boundary of the party to the Cheongdog intersection, and the Defendant’s vehicle proceeding in the same direction depending on the right line, is attempting to change the lanes into three lanes beyond the safety zone between the three lanes and the two lanes.

In the event of an accident where the front part of the Plaintiff’s right side and the rear part of the Defendant’s left side of the vehicle were contacted.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

By September 27, 2017, the Plaintiff sustained injuries from E, F, G, and H while on board the Plaintiff’s vehicle. The Plaintiff paid KRW 497,00 for treatment expenses, KRW 150,00 for consolation money, KRW 150,00 for other damages, KRW 32,00 for transportation expenses, KRW 879,00 for four days x KRW 670,530 for medical expenses, KRW 150,00 for consolation money, KRW 150,00 for other damages x KRW 86,00 for transportation expenses, KRW 8,530 for seven days x KRW 227,50 for medical expenses, KRW 150,00 for others x KRW 16,00 for transportation expenses x 8,00 for other transportation expenses x 30,500 for total damages x 2039,530,500 for other transportation expenses x 200,537,5000.

The plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant for deliberation on the ratio of negligence with the Motor Vehicle Insurance I Deliberation Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "Deliberation Committee"), and the Deliberation Committee claimed on November 13, 2017 about the specific accident. However, in the data of the accident presented, the combined vehicle tried to combine beyond the safety area due to the contact between the three-lane straight-in vehicle in the main line (Plaintiff vehicle) and the right-hand combined vehicle (Defendant vehicle) in the combined section of the motorway.