1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. The plaintiff and the defendant among the costs of appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner and driver of C vehicle at the time of the following accident (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”). The Defendant is the driver of D vehicle at the time of the following accident (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”). The Intervenor joining the Defendant is the insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant vehicle.

B. On January 13, 2015, at around 14:50, the Plaintiff driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle along the two lanes among the four-lane roads in order to drive the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the road near the Seocheon-dong, Seocheon-si and changed the lane rapidly to the one-lane, which became possible to be a U.S., while driving the vehicle along the one-lane prior to the Plaintiff’s vehicle and entering the one-lane road as a U.S. vehicle was shocked with the back side of the driver’s seat of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “the instant accident”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff caused the Plaintiff’s injury to the Gyeong-dong, etc., and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was damaged.

C. In relation to the instant accident, the Plaintiff spent KRW 145,210 as medical expenses, and KRW 572,00 as repair expenses for the Plaintiff’s vehicle, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that at the time of the accident, the Plaintiff was proceeding with the Plaintiff’s vehicle in a normal way. However, the Plaintiff sought reimbursement of KRW 2,717,549 in total, including the medical expenses and repair expenses and consolation money of KRW 2,717,549, by asserting that the Defendant’s vehicle remaining behind the Plaintiff’s vehicle was shocked that the instant accident occurred due to its shock.

B. The image of the evidence Nos. 1 and 5 alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the instant accident occurred due to the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the same. Rather, the situation of the lane at the time of the accident recognized by the evidence as above, and the damage of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle.