1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with A car (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid operator who has entered into an automobile mutual aid contract with respect to B freight vehicles (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”).

On June 30, 2017, around 08:31, an accident occurred that conflicts with the defendant's vehicle that the plaintiff changed from the fourth to five lanes in order to leave the lane to the right-hand edge on the road in the direction-side 5 lane in the direction-side of the mountain road in Ansan-si, Ansan-si (hereinafter referred to as "the road of this case") with the vehicle that was driven along the five lanes of the road of this case from the outer road to the five lanes of the road of this case.

On July 6, 2017, the Plaintiff, as an insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, paid KRW 297,520 in total as repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle according to the instant accident.

[Based on recognition, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) evidence Nos. 3 and 4; (b) evidence Nos. 5; and (c) evidence Nos. 2; and (d) the purport of the whole pleading of the instant accident; and (b) the Plaintiff asserted that if the Defendant vehicle entered the instant road with due care, it would have easily verified the existence of the Plaintiff vehicle on the left-hand side if he/she could have easily verified the existence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle; and (c) the fault ratio for not doing so would have exceeded 40%; and (d) the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 119,00 (297,520 x 40%) corresponding to the Defendant vehicle fault ratio among the KRW 297,520 paid with the insurance money

In regard to this, the defendant, although the defendant's vehicle had been driving the five-lanes of the road of this case, the plaintiff's vehicle is unreasonable to change the vehicle line.

Since Defendant 1 received Defendant 1, this case asserts that the accident was due to the total negligence of Plaintiff 1’s vehicle.

Judgment

The driver of any motor vehicle shall impede normal traffic of other motor vehicles running in the direction to which the driver intends to change course of the motor vehicle in accordance with Article 19 (3) of the Road Traffic Act.