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. Cases of indemnity between the insurers of vehicles involved in a traffic accident;

A. On July 12, 2018, around 10:14, July 2018, at the time of the insured vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) Defendant Insured Vehicle CD (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) with respect to the insurance relation, such as the background of the accident, one of the two-lanes in front of the accident scene in Geumcheon-gu Seoul, Geumcheon-gu, Seoul, is proceeding in order of the Defendant vehicle and the Plaintiff vehicle.

Plaintiff

On the other hand, the vehicle's one lane is moving along, and the vehicle of the defendant who deviates from the direction of the vehicle running ahead of the defendant vehicle by changing the lane is moving the vehicle's body into the two lane, and the vehicle's body was changed into the two lane, and the part on the right side of the vehicle of the plaintiff was shocked by the left side of the vehicle of the plaintiff.

Details of the payment of insurance proceeds to Plaintiffs 9,279,000 won on August 2, 2018

B. The instant accident, which judged negligence, did not properly examine the following vehicles, and caused the negligence of the Defendant vehicle that entered the two lanes rapidly.

However, in light of the background of the above accident, the shock of the vehicle, etc., it appears that the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle could sufficiently avoid the accident due to continuous operation by examining the movement of the Defendant’s vehicle preceding the next lane. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s negligence is also attributable to the Plaintiff’s vehicle that failed to properly avoid the accident.

Plaintiff

It is reasonable to view the fault ratio of vehicles and defendant vehicles as 30:70.

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant vehicle did not give any instruction while entering the two lanes, and that the plaintiff vehicle was not negligent in the occurrence of the accident in light of the distance between the defendant vehicle in close vicinity and the plaintiff vehicle. However, according to Gap6, the defendant vehicle was entering the vehicle with the direction direction, etc., and the plaintiff vehicle was bound by considering the traffic situation of the next lane, the accident could be avoided. Thus, the above argument is rejected.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Defendant’s duty of reimbursement of KRW 6,495,300 ( = 9,279,000 x 0.7)

2. Conclusion.