1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is subject to Paragraph (1).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to A New Track Vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to BTrack Vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicles”).

B. Around 11:20 on March 14, 2017, the Defendant’s vehicle changed the lane from the two-lane to the one-lane while driving from the two-lane to the one-lane in the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle while driving at the two-lane to the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle on the two-lane from the two-lane to the one-lane.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On March 20, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,200,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant accident occurred due to the negligence of the Defendant’s driver who neglected the duty to ensure the safety distance, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,200,00 to the Plaintiff’s repair cost for the Plaintiff’s vehicle, thereby acquiring the Plaintiff’s damage claim against the Defendant’s Defendant vehicle driver in accordance with the insurer’s subrogation doctrine. As such, the Defendant, the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above vehicle repair cost of KRW 4,200,000, and the damages for its delay. 2) The Defendant’s Plaintiff’s driver, who was the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, changed the lane rapidly without any signal at the time of the instant accident, and contributed to the occurrence of the instant accident. Accordingly, the Defendant’

B. Considering the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as seen earlier, the instant accident did not point out the fault and direction direction of the Defendant vehicle driver who neglected the duty to ensure safety distance.