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 has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B-owned vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned vehicles”), and the Defendant is a person who has entered into a mutual aid contract with C bus (hereinafter “Defendant-owned vehicle”).

B. At around 14:35 on August 19, 2016, D, while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle, driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle and driving the three-lane of the white tank apartment in Bupyeong-gu Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, the Defendant’s vehicle, who changed the lane from four lanes to three lanes, shocked the rear part of the Plaintiff’s right side.

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

Under the comprehensive automobile insurance contract, the Plaintiff spent KRW 1,874,490 as insurance money with respect to D, and KRW 2,569,00 as the repair cost for the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The instant accident regarding the cause of the claim occurred due to the unreasonable change in the vehicular lane of the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle. The Defendant is obligated to pay the insurance money or damages to the Plaintiff within the limit of the Plaintiff’s payment to the third party in accordance with the insurance subrogation doctrine (Article 682 of the Commercial Act).

However, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, the following circumstances, namely, ① the vehicle of the defendant was a situation in which the vehicle of the defendant was inevitable to change the lane into three lanes due to the reduction of the lane between the defendant vehicle and the vehicle of the defendant vehicle, ② the vehicle of the defendant vehicle started to be operated by the signal signal, and even if the distance between the previous vehicle and the vehicle of the defendant vehicle was set at a certain point at the time of commencement of the change of the lane, it seems to cause misunderstanding that the vehicle of the plaintiff vehicle would allow the driver of the defendant vehicle to change the lane without just speed or speed, ③ the previous vehicle of the defendant vehicle was also changed into three lanes immediately before the occurrence of the accident in this case, and the vehicle of the defendant was also a situation in which the plaintiff can recognize the change of the lane.