1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. The circumstances leading to the instant accident are as follows.

At the time of the accident, the insured vehicle A, at the time of the insured vehicle A, on July 10, 2016 at the time of the accident, was changed from the 4th to the 4th one while the insured vehicle in the Seo-gu Daejeon at the location of the defendant insured vehicle A, the insured vehicle B, at the location of the Daejeon Seo-gu, Daejeon, Daejeon, to the three-lanes of the 4th two lanes in letter C, and the part adjacent to the driver's seat of the plaintiff insured vehicle was shocked (the first accident), and did not properly operate the steering system, and again did not operate the steering system, the insured vehicle's left side (the second accident) for the payment of insurance proceeds to the defendant insured vehicle, the insured victim D [based], the ground for recognition], Gap's evidence No. 1 to 6, Eul's evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the video, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The plaintiff asserts that all of the first and second accidents in this case occurred by unilateral negligence on the part of the defendant insured vehicle, and that the plaintiff claimed insurance money of KRW 821,00 paid to the driver of the plaintiff insured vehicle in accordance with the agreement on the security for self-vehicle damage and damages for delay from the day after the date of the final payment of insurance money for the insurance money of KRW 1,909,760, total of KRW 2,670,760 paid to the driver of the plaintiff insured vehicle in accordance with the agreement on the security for self-vehicle damage, and for this, the defendant claimed that the first accident occurred by negligence of some of the defendant insured vehicle driver, but the second accident occurred by intentional receiving the defendant insured vehicle as a retaliation against the first accident.

According to the above evidence, the defendant's insured vehicle driven more than the plaintiff's insured vehicle with three lanes, and the first accident occurred while changing the vehicle line to four lanes rapidly without examining the surrounding areas. Since the first accident occurred, two vehicles have been temporarily driven, and the defendant's insured vehicle again changed to the direction of the plaintiff's insured vehicle again, and the second accident occurred again.