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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to A halog Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to B K5 vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On August 12, 2017, around 18:30, an accident occurred that conflicts with the Defendant’s vehicle that was followed by the eight-lane while the Plaintiff’s vehicle going into the seven-lanes in the direction of Il-gu, Busan metropolitan Highway located in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si, and the eight-lanes (see attached drawings), and the part on the right side side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the part on the left side side of the Defendant’s vehicle were damaged, respectively.

C. On September 22, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,002,230 to C at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and KRW 3,742,230 to D.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1 through 7, Eul 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle confirmed that there was no vehicle following the eight-lanes, and completed a career change by changing its course. The said accident is an accident that occurred by negligence on the part of the Defendant vehicle that entirely violates the duty of front-time watching, the duty of safety distance maintenance, and the duty of concession.

B. At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle did not change its course on a full basis, and did not turn on direction direction direction etc., and the Defendant’s vehicle could not at all anticipate the change of course of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. Thus, the said accident is an accident that occurred due to the Plaintiff’s negligence, which breached the driver’s duty of care in changing its course entirely.

3. In order for the Plaintiff to claim the amount of indemnity against the Defendant in accordance with the legal principles of subrogation by insurers and the provision of the victim’s direct right to claim against the insurer as stipulated in Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act, the existence of the negligence of the Defendant vehicle, and the negligence of the Defendant vehicle.