1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with D two-wheeled Vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On July 22, 2017, around 17:05, in the vicinity of the F Hospital located in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, there was an accident in which the Plaintiff’s vehicle entering the fourth-lane road, leaving the alley and going through the fourth-lane road, was shocking the Defendant’s vehicle in progress on one lane (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On August 17, 2017, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 279,380 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 8 evidence, Eul 1 to 3 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the shock of the Plaintiff’s vehicle while entering India as a sudden driver, resulting in the Defendant’s fault.

Therefore, the defendant, who is the insurer of the defendant vehicle, is obligated to pay the insurance money paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff 279,380 won and damages for delay.

B. In light of the situation of the accident of this case, which can be seen by the evidence mentioned above, and the location of each vehicle and the degree of collision, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the accident of this case occurred due to the previous negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle, since the plaintiff vehicle, who had changed the vehicle lane rapidly from the four lanes to the one lane, appears to conflict with the vehicle of this case, which was normal in the first lane. The evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the accident of this case occurred due to the violation of the duty of front-time watching or the duty of care for safe operation, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.