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 the owner of the Plaintiff’s private taxi vehicle B (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the C Cargo Vehicle shocking the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On September 9, 2015, the driver of the Defendant vehicle runs three-lanes of the five-lanes by driving the vehicle at the Kuduk-distance Intersection and the Defendant vehicle located in 248 as the repair of the Seo-gu Busan Metropolitan City as of September 10, 2015.

With the entry into a narrow road in the four-lanes, while changing the two-lane line, the driver neglected the duty to ensure a safety distance and the duty to watch the front line, etc., and caused the Plaintiff’s replacement of the two-lane line from the four-lane to the two-lane line in the same direction. (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. Due to the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was destroyed to have an amount equivalent to KRW 1,014,200 for repair costs, and the Plaintiff was unable to drive a taxi during the instant period.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3 through 10, Eul evidence 1 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above facts of recognition of liability, since the accident of this case occurred due to negligence of neglecting the duty to ensure a safety distance in driving the defendant vehicle, the duty to ensure a safety distance, and the duty to perform the duty of the front left-down, etc., the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff as the insurer of the defendant vehicle for the damages incurred by the plaintiff due to

B. The limitation of liability: (a) the following circumstances revealed by the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as seen earlier, namely, ① the Plaintiff’s rapid change from four lanes to two lanes, which conflict with the Defendant’s vehicle; and (b) the Plaintiff was at the time, because the signal signal, etc. was sent to the intersection of the street at the time prior to the stop, thus stopping on the spot and making the following signal.