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, at around 12:50 on December 18, 2017, the insured vehicle A, the insured vehicle, at the location of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Han River (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) stopped on the four-lane road to change the lanes between the four-lanes of the Han River Zone and the four-lanes of the Han River Zone at the time of the accident. The insured vehicle stopped on the front part of the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), which was proceeding after the Defendant in the aftermast vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”) and stopped on the front part of the Plaintiff vehicle. A vehicle (hereinafter “third vehicle”), which was proceeding in three-lanes while the Defendant vehicle stops, was paid the insurance money to the Han River Zone at the location of Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”), and there is no ground for dispute as to the change of the lanes between the two-lanes of the Han River Zone and the four-lanes.

2. The instant accident alleged by the Plaintiff is a joint tort caused by the fault of the driver of the Defendant vehicle who was immediately stopped. In light of the circumstances surrounding the instant accident, the degree of contribution to the instant accident by the driver of the Plaintiff vehicle and the driver of the Defendant vehicle is 70:30.

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff and the Defendant were jointly relieved of liability upon paying the insurance proceeds to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay the amount of KRW 135,300 (=451,000 x 30%) to the Plaintiff.

The Defendant’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the Plaintiff’s unilateral negligence of the driver of the Plaintiff vehicle, who neglected the duty of front-time care without securing safety distance, and thus, the Defendant did not have the duty to pay the Plaintiff the indemnity

3. According to the fact of recognition of the fact that the driver of the defendant vehicle has committed a joint tort, the accident of this case is the principal negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle, who neglected the duty to keep safety distance and the duty to keep safety distance.