1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Facts of recognition;

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

B. On July 20, 2018: (a) around 08:11, the 2nd line near the EF restaurant located in Sejong-si, the following: (b) the Defendant’s vehicle that attempted to combine the said road with the Defendant’s vehicle, such as the “accident site map”; and (c) the Defendant’s vehicle in the front line while driving a two-lane, discovered the vehicle in the front line while driving the two-lane, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle that changed the lane from the two-lane to the one-lane (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”).

The part of the collision is the front part of the right side of the plaintiff vehicle (from the gate to the gate) and the front part of the left side of the defendant vehicle.

C. The Plaintiff, the insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant traffic accident, paid KRW 2,547,110 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle on September 7, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3 through 8, 11, Eul evidence 2 through 6 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the instant traffic accident occurred due to the shock of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was normally driven in the process of combining the Defendant’s vehicle into the above road.

As such, since the instant traffic accident occurred due to the unilateral negligence of the Defendant’s driver, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 2,547,110 and the delay damages therefor.

B. According to the above-mentioned facts and the evidence revealed earlier, the driver of the Defendant vehicle has a duty of care to safely ensure that it does not obstruct the normal passage of other vehicles at the time of the combination of roads, but failed to perform such duty of care, and attempted to harmonize the above road with the above road, and provided the main cause of the instant traffic accident, and the driver of the Plaintiff vehicle as the driver of the vehicle is also a kind of road.