1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to the vehicle B (hereinafter “Defendant”) for the vehicle A (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to the vehicle B (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On June 27, 2017, at around 09:15, C driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and moved the way from 7km to 2 lanes in the Ulsan-gun, Busan-gun, the captain of Busan-gun, along the three lanes (on the right side of the road, a dricking day is installed) of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes in the Ulsan-gun, and discovered the Defendant’s vehicle that changed the way from 7km in the mountain direction to the two-lanes of the two-lane, and re-enters the hand-on to the port.

However, C runs up to one lane on the winding side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s hand on the left side, and then the center separation zone was shocked.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

By November 27, 2017, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 120,857,280 in total with the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the six winners of C and the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the agreed amount.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion of the cause of claim

A. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the indemnity amounting to 50% of the Defendant’s driver’s fault, 60,428,640 won, and its delay damages, as it erred by changing the course into two lanes without examining in advance whether there are other vehicles seeking to change the course into two lanes.

B. Determination that there was no direct conflict between the plaintiff vehicle and the defendant vehicle, the defendant vehicle seems to have attempted to change course from the overtaking lane to the driving lane, and it seems to have been normally progress. As a result of the police investigation, only the violation of the duty of safe driving by C, which is the driver of the plaintiff vehicle, is recognized.