1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to the automobile C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), with respect to the automobile D (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. At around 17:00 on November 9, 2018, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving along five lanes on the private household street in the private household intersection in Jungdong-gu Seoul, Jungdong-gu, Seoul, along the direction of the private household street, changed the lane into four lanes between the Defendant vehicle driving along four lanes. immediately after the Plaintiff’s vehicle left the intersection, the Defendant vehicle entering the intersection with the Defendant vehicle entering the vehicle and the following vehicle, while the Plaintiff’s vehicle stops, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle shocked the Plaintiff’s first vehicle, and the Plaintiff’s second shocked the Defendant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, 8, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including virtual numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The negligence of the Defendant vehicle parked in order to change the lane within the intersection of the intent of the Plaintiff’s assertion became the main cause of the occurrence of the accident, and the responsibility ratio of the Defendant vehicle is 70%.

The Plaintiff paid the total of KRW 5,612,660 (excluding self-charges) for the repair cost of the Plaintiff, KRW 4,120,00, and KRW 1,492,660 for the city bus repair cost.

Therefore, the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff KRW 3,928,860 (i.e., the repair cost for the Plaintiff 5,612,660 x Defendant vehicle liability ratio 70%) and damages for delay.

B. The following circumstances, i.e., the overall purport of the arguments, which are acknowledged in addition to the aforementioned evidence, (i) the Plaintiff’s vehicle changed the lane in the desection where the change of lanes is prohibited; and (ii) the Plaintiff’s vehicle operated a bus with which many passengers are on board a four-lane, which is able to cope with a rapid danger, and thus, the Plaintiff’s driver should have changed the lane safely while maintaining a sufficient distance from the bus so that it does not interfere with the operation of the bus.