1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with A car (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a transport business entity who is the owner of B cab (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”).

On February 25, 2017, around 16:50, the defendant vehicle moving from the first lane to the second lane among the fourth lane of the road in the direction of the Busan Metropolitan City-do Do Do Do 4 lane, and the following vehicle C car driving the second lane from the latter (hereinafter “victimd vehicle”) was rapid, the plaintiff's vehicle driving along the second lane from the damaged vehicle did not stop and collision the latter part of the damaged vehicle (hereinafter “the accident in this case”).

As the insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the Plaintiff paid KRW 8,90,760,00 in total as the repair cost of the instant vehicle from March 6, 2017 to March 24, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff asserted that the defendant vehicle's negligence is much more than that of the plaintiff's vehicle, since the defendant vehicle's vehicle's accident occurred due to the reason that the plaintiff's vehicle's sudden change of the plaintiff's vehicle caused the accident of this case due to the reason that the plaintiff's vehicle's sudden change of the plaintiff's vehicle was involved in the accident of this case, as stated in Gap's evidence 1-1, 2, 3, and 7-1 through 11, and the video of Gap's evidence 4-6 and the purport of the whole argument

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the negligence of the plaintiff vehicle is much more severe than that of the defendant vehicle, since the accident of this case occurred because the plaintiff vehicle did not secure the safety distance and neglected to do so while driving ahead of the front line.

Judgment

According to Article 19 (3) of the Road Traffic Act, no driver shall change his/her course when it is likely to impede normal traffic of other vehicles running in the direction to which he/she intends to change his/her course.

However, according to the images of Eul No. 5, the defendant vehicle is avoiding the body of the front of the expressway.