1. The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Facts of recognition;

A. As to D vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicles”), Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) is the insurer who concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to the vehicle E (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On February 16, 2018, around 13:22, the Plaintiff’s vehicle run by F was running in the direction of south-do along the fourth line road near the subway Station No. 3 of the subway Station located in Busan East-gu, Busan-do, and changed to two lanes, the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was operated by F, caused a collision between the front side part part of the Defendant’s vehicle’s front side part, penter, headlight, and the front side part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle operated by the Defendant C on the two-lane of the road (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On February 25, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 754,930 to F at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The following circumstances found in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving in the same direction on the same lane on the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driving ahead of it, and attempted to turn on the right side direction, etc., and to change the vehicle into the two-lane. The Defendant’s vehicle seems to have failed to properly recognize the Plaintiff’s attempt to change the vehicle’s vehicle until the considerable portion of the Plaintiff’s vehicle enters the two-lane, and the time when the Plaintiff’s vehicle enters the two-lane, the speed of the vehicle’s moving into the two-lane, and the overall flow of the vehicle, etc., if the Defendant vehicle did not neglect to perform the duty of frontway and the duty of safe driving, it appears that the Defendant’s vehicle could avoid the accident of this case, which conflicts after the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the left side side, and the circumstances and circumstances of the accident in this case.