1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The following facts may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, on each entry or image of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 8, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3.

The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract between C and C with respect to the vehicle E owned by D (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”), including an agreement on self-vehicle damage security (including a special agreement on self-payment), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to the vehicle G vehicle owned by F (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”).

B. At around 19:30 on March 1, 2019, D, driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and changing the two lanes from the two lanes in front of the 340 new forest road to the one lane in the new forest road in front of the 340 new forest road in front of the 340 new forest road, and driving the two lanes into the one lane in front of the new forest road, and driving the Plaintiff’s left side and the two lanes in front of the Plaintiff’s vehicle immediately behind the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and, at the same time, there was a conflict between the two lanes in front of the Defendant’s right side of the Defendant’s vehicle, which attempted to change

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On April 2, 2019, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 1,841,200, excluding KRW 460,000, out of the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

2. Existence and scope of liability for indemnity; and

A. According to the above fact of recognition of the existence of the liability for indemnity, the accident of this case occurred as a result of the negligence of neglecting the obligation to take measures at the time of the change of the vehicle while neglecting the obligation to take measures at the time of the change of the vehicle in the situation that the Defendant, the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, was liable to compensate for the damages equivalent to the above repair cost incurred by D, the insured of the Plaintiff vehicle, due to the accident of this case. Since the Plaintiff, as the insurer of the Plaintiff vehicle, was exempted from its payment obligation by subrogation of the said damages caused by the Plaintiff’s subrogation.