1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Facts of recognition

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

B. At around 12:30 on September 4, 2014, the Defendant’s vehicle driven along the fourth lane on the road near Sugwon-si, Sugwon-si, Sugwon-si, the bus stopped in the front of the same lane was changed to the third lane, and then changed to the fourth, five lanes, and then changed to the fourth, four lanes in the other city, while changing to the fourth, the Plaintiff’s vehicle, who changed to the fourth, from the third, to the fourth, the road at the same time at the same time on the road at the same time, was shocked into the front direction of the Plaintiff’s right road, fences, and white part in the front door and door of the Defendant’s left side of the vehicle.

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

On September 30, 2014, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 1,075,780, excluding KRW 200,000, out of the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident, 1,275,780.

[Ground of recognition] In light of the above fact-finding, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10, or the fact of recognition that the damage liability was caused by the determination of the purport of the whole pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that the accident of this case was caused by the mistake of the defendant vehicle driver who frequently and rapidly changed the lane within a short period of time.

However, when the driver of the plaintiff vehicle changes the lane to the right side of the moving direction, the driver is negligent in changing the lane to the right side without properly examining the situation of the lane or the movement of the other vehicle. In full view of the situation of the accident in this case, the situation before and after the accident in this case, and all the circumstances shown in the arguments in this case, such as the damaged parts of the original defendant vehicle, it is reasonable to view the negligence ratio of the plaintiff vehicle and the defendant vehicle as 4:6.

Therefore, the defendant vehicle insured is 765,468 won (=1,275,780 won x 0.6) and the plaintiff vehicle insured.