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. 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 March 13, 2015, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle on March 13, 2015, and driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the part of the Defendant’s driver’s seat fronter part of the front fronter part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was driven from the village room in the vicinity of the Gumi-dong branch of the Sungnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, to the Gumi Station. However, from the above three-distance distance, the part of the Defendant’s driver’s seat fronter part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving seat, which was driven by the Gumido branch

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

On April 16, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,286,000 with the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 6, 7, Gap evidence 9-1, 2, Eul evidence 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the accident in this case occurred due to the previous negligence of the defendant's driver who affected the first lane while neglecting the duty of the front line. The defendant asserted that the accident in this case occurred due to the previous negligence of the defendant's driver who affected the second lane, and that the change of the plaintiff's vehicle into the second lane and collision with the defendant's vehicle who circumvented the second lane, so the plaintiff's driver's negligence is not significant in the occurrence of the accident in this case.

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, namely, the final stop of the Defendant’s vehicle does not seem to deviate from two lanes, and the body of the vehicle in light of the last stop condition of the Defendant’s vehicle, etc., the instant accident is the duty of the front stop by both the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle moving right at a three-distance distance.