The defendant's KRW 17,593,590 to the plaintiff and 5% per annum from February 14, 2020 to November 26, 2020 to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to C Passenger Vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity who entered into an automobile mutual aid contract with respect to Dsi (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On December 14, 2019, around 12:23, 2019, the Plaintiff’s vehicle changed the rear part of the Defendant’s vehicle into the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle while driving in the direction from the north to the south of the three lanes of the distribution bridge located in Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

The Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 87,967,950 in total by February 13, 2020, due to the medical expenses for the Plaintiff’s driver of the instant accident, the scraping expenses for the Plaintiff’s vehicle, etc.

[Ground of recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 1 through 9 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the change of his own course without confirming the flow of the vehicle in the lane in which the Defendant vehicle wants to change its course and without securing a safe distance, but as the Plaintiff’s negligence was committed on the part of the Plaintiff vehicle, the Defendant is obliged to pay KRW 43,983,970 equivalent to 50% of the negligence of the Defendant vehicle out of the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff, as well as damages for delay.

B. According to the video of Gap evidence No. 4, the plaintiff driver of the vehicle in question at the time, in light of the situation, is a vehicle in the two-lanes, without properly verifying the flow of the vehicle along the two-lanes of the road in this case, and without transmitting the change of the vehicle to the three-lanes. However, the accident in this case occurred immediately after the change of the vehicle to the three-lanes. However, in full view of the overall purport of the arguments and the video of the evidence No. 1 to No. 4 (including each number), the plaintiff driver is a vehicle in the two-lanes.