1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant, and those resulting from the intervention in the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with B on the vehicle of the horse board owned by B (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with A on the D Spke vehicle owned by A (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. At around 07:55 on November 18, 2014, the Defendant vehicle conflict with the Plaintiff vehicle while driving the motorway between Youngcheon-si, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul, and destroyed the front part of the Plaintiff vehicle, the front part, the front part, and the front part.

C. Due to the foregoing accident, B claimed insurance proceeds to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,286,000 to E, etc. on January 22, 2015 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry and video of Gap evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. It would be the direct cause of the instant collision that the Defendant vehicle, which the Plaintiff asserted, was proceeding while driving the road at normal speed, did not fully consider the progress of the Plaintiff vehicle going behind in the course of attempting to alter the vehicle’s vehicle in order to enter the intersection.

It is reasonable to view that the negligence ratio of Defendant vehicle exceeds 80%.

Since 2,286,00 won was paid at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the Defendant is liable to pay KRW 1,828,800 to the Plaintiff according to the above fault ratio.

B. The Defendant’s alleged vehicle was in a two-lane, but the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the morizontal section, but changed the lane to the two-lanes, resulting in an accident by negligence that did not look at the left and right while changing the lane.

C. Defendant vehicle asserted in the Intervenor joining the Defendant was in the presence of the Defendant.

Since the Defendant’s vehicle was completely entering the secondary line, the fault ratio was erroneous.

The plaintiff vehicle is a minor damage, and the repair cost is excessive.

3. The judgment of Gap shall include evidence Nos. 5, Eul Nos. 2 through 5, 8, 10 to 14.