The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purport and purport of the appeal

1. The purport of the claim;

1. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; (b) evidence of Nos. 1 to 5, 7, and evidence of No. 1 to 3 or video of No. 1 to 3; or (c) the purport of the whole pleadings (the plaintiff's reference materials of Jun. 16, 2020).

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract that contains an agreement on securing self-vehicle damage with respect to D vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”) with C, and the Defendant is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to E vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On July 19, 2019, the Plaintiff’s vehicle changed the lane from the two lanes to the three lanes from among the three-lanes in front of F in the end of 19:20 on July 19, 2019, and attempted to make a right-hand route, conflicts with the Defendant’s vehicle that attempted to make a right-hand route just on the road narrow to the right-hand side of the proceeding direction (hereinafter “the instant accident”), and the volume of the accident is as indicated in the attached Form.

(c)

By October 25, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,942,930, excluding KRW 500,000, out of the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

2. Existence and scope of the obligation for indemnity.

A. The Plaintiff is liable for reimbursement due to the negligence of the Defendant’s driver who attempted to make a right-to-pass without driving and driving slowly while entering the instant accident from the river to the river.

However, in full view of the aforementioned facts and the purport of the entire arguments, the instant accident occurred by the Defendant’s negligence, which did not closely state the progress of the vehicle on the surrounding road, while changing the lanes from the two lanes to the three lanes among the three lanes, and at the same time entering the vehicle bypassing it from the fruits of the Plaintiff’s vehicle that made a right-hand route to the road, while entering the vehicle bypassing it to the road as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice.

Since it can be sufficiently recognized, the plaintiff's assertion of immunity is without merit.

The above judgment is based on the foregoing judgment.