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

B. On July 25, 2016, around 08:40 on July 25, 2016, the Defendant’s vehicle passed a safety zone from the front of the driver’s seat of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in front of the Defendant’s driver’s seat, to the front part of the right-hand part of the Defendant’s vehicle, along the two-lanes, while driving along the two-lanes depending on the first lane.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

The instant accident caused the Plaintiff’s destruction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which requires KRW 1,807,00 as repair cost. On August 22, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,446,000, excluding KRW 361,00 of D’s self-charges, as insurance proceeds.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-3 evidence, Eul 1-5 evidence (including the whole number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Even if the Plaintiff’s assertion was not made by U.S., the Defendant’s vehicle shocked the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and thus, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was not negligent in the occurrence of the instant accident.

Considering the above circumstances and the reason why the U.S. is prohibited on the safety zone, it is not intended to protect the vehicle that passed above the safety zone, the causal link between the Plaintiff’s U.S. and the instant accident is not recognized.

B. In light of the circumstances of the instant case 1, it is determined that the instant accident was caused by the shocking of the Defendant’s vehicle without avoiding the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the future, on the ground that the Defendant’s vehicle, who was driving in the safety zone, basically neglected the duty of a front-time driver.

However, the plaintiff's vehicle attempted to block the safety zone in which one lane or U.S. is impossible on the two-lanes. The above negligence of the plaintiff's vehicle contributed to the occurrence and expansion of the accident in this case.