1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer of the automobile comprehensive insurance for A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is the insurer of the automobile comprehensive insurance for B (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On July 14, 2016, around 13:40 on July 14, 2016, the Plaintiff’s vehicle proceeded with one lane from among the second line roads adjacent to the “D” located in Pyeongtaek-si C, to the slowly controlled area from the culpung apartment room, while changing the fleet to the two lane, the lower part on the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle driving in the same direction as that of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was shocked into the right side of the Plaintiff’s right side.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On July 27, 2016, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 654,700 at the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Each entry and video of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1 through 6 (including branch numbers for those with branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In light of the fact that the driver of a vehicle is likely to obstruct the normal passage of another vehicle running in the direction to change the course of the vehicle (Article 19(3) of the Road Traffic Act). In light of the fact that the vehicle of the Plaintiff at the time of the accident of this case conflicts with the part adjacent to the left side of the Defendant vehicle running behind the vehicle of the Plaintiff in front of the right side of the vehicle, among the roads where the vehicle of the Plaintiff was changing the vehicle at the time of the accident of this case, even though the distance with the Defendant vehicle was not sufficiently secured, it seems that the vehicle of the Plaintiff is unreasonable to change the vehicle despite the fact that the vehicle of the vehicle of this case was not secured, and conflicts with the part adjacent to the left side of the Defendant vehicle of the vehicle of this case driving behind the vehicle of this case. Thus, it can be recognized that the Plaintiff vehicle of this case was negligent in changing the vehicle of this case without checking the Defendant vehicle properly.

However, even before the change of the vehicle line by the plaintiff, the defendant vehicle is more than the plaintiff vehicle.