1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On January 27, 2015, at around 10:10, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven along a three-lane road in the vicinity of the Dong, Young-gu, Young-gu, U.S., U.S., at around 10:10, along the two-lanes of the Defendant vehicle running along a two-way line honding to the right side of the Plaintiff vehicle, without proceeding to the left side by the subway construction near the three-lanes adjacent to the front side, and the two-lanes on the left side of the Defendant vehicle running along a two-way line honding to the right side of the Plaintiff vehicle without proceeding to the left side.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On February 25, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 377,500 as the repair cost for the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant vehicle driven along the two lanes without reducing speed in the rapid hub section due to the subway construction works and caused the accident of this case where the plaintiff's vehicle changed to the one lane that the plaintiff's vehicle driven along the two lanes and shocked the plaintiff vehicle. Thus, the defendant asserts that the defendant is obliged to pay the above insurance money 377,500 won and damages for delay in the accident of this case caused by the negligence of the defendant vehicle that is responsible for the duty of safe driving in the construction section and the duty of safe operation in the front section.

B. In light of the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, it seems that the Defendant’s vehicle proceeds at a speed lower than that of the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the left-hand side due to the subway construction works, but the driving speed is the speed of the vehicle.