1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

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

B. On September 14, 2014, around 16:25, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven along three lanes near the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Fire-Fighting Road, and the Defendant’s vehicle driving along a two-lane connected to the access road prior to the Plaintiff’s vehicle came into the safety zone prior to the above access road, and changed the two-lane into a three-lane one another, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle rapidly changed the two-lane to the four-lane in order to avoid this, and conflict with the non-vehicle on the vehicle number, which was driven on the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On October 21, 2014, with respect to the instant accident, the Plaintiff paid KRW 882,100 as the repair cost for the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, 4, Eul evidence 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The plaintiff asserts that since the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence of the defendant's vehicle that rapidly changed the lane in the zone where the change of lane was prohibited, the defendant should pay the plaintiff the full amount of the insurance money paid by the plaintiff with the indemnity amount and the damages for delay thereof. 2) The defendant asserts that since the plaintiff's vehicle at the time was too rapid and did not recognize the change of the lane of the defendant vehicle, the negligence of the plaintiff vehicle should be considered more than 50%.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire argument of the evidence as seen earlier, it appears that the Defendant’s attempt to change the lane without considering the movement of the Plaintiff’s vehicle that was subsequently committed in the prohibited zone for change of the lane was the cause of the instant accident, and it is recognized that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was too excessive at the time.