1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Facts of recognition

The plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with A new learning vehicle (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff vehicle").

The defendant is a mutual-aid association which has entered into a motor vehicle mutual-aid contract with a private taxi vehicle B (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant vehicle").

On January 9, 2016, around 02:22, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driven along the one lane near the main station in the direction of the Cropulation in the direction of the Cropia of the Silsan Silsan City, along the two-lanes of the said road, conflict with the Defendant’s vehicle, who was driving along the two-lanes in the direction of the Cropium in the direction of the Cropium of the said Cropia.

By February 29, 201, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 2,197,860 in total to D driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle who was injured by the said accident (i.e., medical expenses of KRW 1,247,860 in total).

【In the absence of any dispute, the Plaintiff asserts that there is damages liability for determining the purport of the entire pleadings and the entries in Gap 1 through 5, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant vehicle’s fault is 100%, since the Plaintiff’s vehicle intending to make a sudden illegal internship while driving the section where the vehicle was loaded in the line with two lanes, while the vehicle was driving in the section where the vehicle was loaded in the line, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven normally in the first lane.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the accident occurred in the course of changing the course of the defendant vehicle, but since the act of changing the course of the defendant vehicle had already been a considerable part on the front side of the plaintiff vehicle, the negligence that the plaintiff vehicle did not live well, contributed to the accident, 30% of the negligence of the plaintiff vehicle, and 70% of the negligence of the defendant vehicle should be applied.

Judgment

According to the above evidence, the defendant vehicle is driving along the two-lanes in the direction of the proceeding, and the vehicle is marked as a stop line and the way of the vehicle is changed from the section where it is impossible to change the lane. At the time, the plaintiff vehicle is the defendant vehicle according to the one-lane.