1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The circumstances leading to the instant accident are as follows.

On May 30, 2018, at the time of the accident, the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff insured vehicle CD at the time of the accident, and around 14:53 on May 30, 2018, the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff vehicle”) in the situation of the collision in the Friju District E located in Daejeon Seo-gu, Daejeon (hereinafter referred to as “the insured vehicle”) is seeking to change the course from three lanes to four lanes on the road at the place of the accident, and the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “the Defendant vehicle”) is in the middle of four lanes, and there is no dispute over the amount of the collision insurance proceeds of KRW 2,315,00, self-guaranteed vehicle loss [based on recognition], the description and image of subparagraphs

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant accident was caused by the unilateral negligence on the part of the Defendant’s vehicle that neglected his/her duty in front of the week, and sought compensation for damages on the full amount of the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff in subrogation of the victim.

In full view of all the circumstances, such as the background of the accident as mentioned above and the background of the accident, the degree of conflict and shock, etc., the accident in this case occurred due to the negligence of the plaintiff's vehicle that changed the course to the four-lane without confirming the rear-way vehicle (Articles 19(3) and 38 of the Road Traffic Act and Article 21 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act), and the defendant's vehicle driving close to the plaintiff's vehicle in the fourth lane in the fourth lane, which was not possible to predict and prepare for the change of the three-lane vehicle to the Gap's own lane without any signal.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim on the premise that there is a cause for offsetting negligence or negligence on the part of the Defendant vehicle is not accepted, since the negligence or negligence of the Defendant vehicle is not recognized.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion shall be dismissed for lack of reasonable grounds.

The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion and thus, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.