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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”). The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. Around 20:00 on July 12, 2018, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was straighted in the direction of two parallel streets in the direction of three-lanes, one of the four-lanes in the direction of three-lanes in the Namyang-si, Namyang-si. However, the Defendant’s vehicle began from four-lanes in the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and entered the two-lanes via three-lanes, and then the two-lanes rapidly approach the two-lanes into the two-lane, and there was a conflict between the two-lanes of the driver’s seat headlight and the front wheels of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

By July 19, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 578,800,00, after deducting self-charges (200,000) from the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident, as insurance proceeds.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the total negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle, and the Defendant should pay KRW 578,800 to the Plaintiff the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, excluding its own share, as a reimbursement.

B. The following circumstances, which can be recognized by comprehensively considering the evidence and the overall purport of arguments as to the above recognition of the percentage of negligence, namely, ① the Defendant’s vehicle proceeding along the four-lanes, without considering the situation of the vehicle’s two-lanes, while changing the lane from the three-lanes to the two-lanes at the time the Plaintiff’s vehicle is running. ② The driver of the vehicle who intends to change course under Article 19(3) of the Road Traffic Act shall interfere with the normal passage of another vehicle running in the direction of changing the course.