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. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with A as to the Plaintiff’s B vehicles below, and the Defendant is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with C vehicles.

B. On May 31, 2013, A driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle at around 12:05, while proceeding to the Seoul Gangseo-nam Hospital in front of the National Library located in Seocho-gu Seoul, the National Library of Seocho-gu, along the right-hand turn signal from the front line of the National Library, when waiting for the left-hand turn turn turn signal at the front line of the National Library, in order to make an internship in front of the National Library of the Republic of Korea. However, at the second lane located in the straight line, A followed the front line of the Defendant’s vehicle, which changed the course from the front line of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the front line of the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

(c) On June 13, 2013, the Plaintiff spent KRW 626,100 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. The Plaintiff paid KRW 626,100 to the Plaintiff’s vehicle. The Plaintiff’s allegation or video (including each number, and the purport of the entire pleadings) of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 8, and 1, 1, and 2.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion (i) The Plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s vehicle was proceeding in the direction of U.S. U.S. to the left-hand turn line on the front left-hand line, and thus, it was impossible to expect the Defendant’s vehicle that changes and enters the course on the right-hand side line in such circumstances, and the collision with the Defendant’s vehicle could not exceed the median line, and thus, the instant accident was entirely caused by the Defendant’s driver’s negligence.

Shedly, the location of the Defendant’s accident is not prohibited from changing lanes, and the Defendant’s vehicle used direction-setting, etc. to change course and attempted to change course, and the Plaintiff also used the course of the Defendant’s vehicle in light of the collision part.