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. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to A car (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid operator who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to B bus (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On November 14, 2014, at around 07:15, C driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the front side of the bus stop at the bus stop located in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, 2014 (hereinafter “instant road”), and proceeded on the two-lanes in the same road located in the front side of the same road as the two-lanes, while driving on the two-lanes in the front side of the bus stop at the same road. After changing the two-lane to the one-lane, the lower part of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was trying to change to the two-lane one another after changing the two-lane to the two-lane one, was shocked by the front side of the Plaintiff’s right side.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On December 31, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 8,084,100 as insurance money under the name of the Plaintiff’s automobile repair cost due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence 1 to 4, or video, fact inquiry results on the old U.S. police station of the trial court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's argument regarding the plaintiff's assertion conflicts with the plaintiff's vehicle that had been living normally in the process of returning the vehicle from the two lanes of the road of this case immediately before the accident of this case to the two lanes before the occurrence of the accident of this case, but did not complete the alteration of the vehicle, and thus, at least 70% of the negligence of the defendant's vehicle should be recognized with respect to the accident of this case where the sudden change of the vehicle of this case caused the main cause for the alteration of the vehicle of this case, the plaintiff claimed against the defendant for payment of 5,658,870 won equivalent to the defendant's fault ratio of 70% of the above insurance money of 8,084,100 won and delay damages.

However, the argument is made in the video of Gap evidence 4.