1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

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

B. On December 1, 2017, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driving in two-lanes on the lower-monthly morizontal Road in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul.

At the time, the Defendant’s vehicle is divided into two lanes in which the Plaintiff’s vehicle was running on the right side, and entered two lanes beyond the safety zone of white real lines, and the E-vehicle that was driven before the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “on-way vehicle”) reduced the speed.

Therefore, in order to avoid the collision with the preceding vehicle, the plaintiff vehicle has contracted the preceding vehicle while entering the same lane, and is the damaged vehicle of the FF vehicle and the damaged vehicle of the first two lanes.

the accident occurred that led to the shock of B.

hereinafter referred to as "the accident of this case"

(C) After the instant accident, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,801,700 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and paid KRW 1,740,00 at the repair cost of the previous vehicle. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, and the purport of the entire statement and arguments set forth in subparagraphs A and 7, respectively.]

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to a sudden stop of the previous vehicle, because the Defendant’s vehicle invadeds the safety zone in violation of Article 13(5) of the Road Traffic Act, and was flowed in two lanes.

In other words, the accident of this case is caused by the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle who did not perform the duty of safe driving or the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle who provided the main cause of the accident of this case. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damage caused by the accident of this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle, and the ratio of the defendant's liability should be 70%.

Therefore, the defendant is the plaintiff.