1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. Costs arising from an appeal and an incidental appeal shall be respectively.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each video of Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 3 to 5, and Eul evidence No. 1:

The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with A (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to B (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”).

B. Around 10:50 on July 11, 2016, the driver of the Defendant vehicle was hired by the driver of the Defendant vehicle in front of the male zone located in the Seoul Metropolitan Government Salydong, but the latter part of the Plaintiff vehicle’s vehicle, which was followed by the same direction, operated the steering gear to the right side by the driver of the Defendant vehicle, while driving through a narrow space on the right side of the Defendant vehicle, conflicts between the right side side side part of the Defendant vehicle and the left side part of the Plaintiff vehicle.

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

On July 20, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 496,000 in total, including KRW 170,400 in C and KRW 325,60 in D, as the repair cost of Plaintiff’s vehicle, etc. upon the insured’s request.

2. Determination:

(a) The main point of the parties' arguments (i) the place of the accident in this case is not divided into two lanes, but the ordinary vehicle is driving on the left side of the road, the vehicle driving on the left side of the road, and the vehicle driving on the right side of the road shall be bypass.

In accordance with the left-hand signal, the defendant vehicle driving on the left-hand side of the road entered the right-hand side of the road immediately before the occurrence of the accident, without turning on the direction direction, etc. within the intersection. The plaintiff vehicle driver, who was under normal driving on the right-hand side of the road, was unable to expect the defendant vehicle not operating the direction, etc. to enter the right-hand side of the road within the intersection prohibited from changing the lane, and as such, the accident in this case is a situation where it is impossible to avoid the shock with the defendant vehicle that rapidly enters the road.