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 Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid association which entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”).

On May 19, 2018, 15:38:15:38, the defendant's vehicle driving in the three-lane road near the head office of Jung-gu, Jung-gu, Seoul, in the process of changing the two-lanes, the accident occurred that causes the shock of the plaintiff's vehicle moving in the two-lanes.

The photographs of the accident site shall be as shown in the attached Form.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, the whole documentary evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff was injured by F who driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident, and the Defendant is liable for damages against F as the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle.

The accident in this case occurred by the negligence of violating the duty of safe driving between the defendant vehicle and the plaintiff vehicle, and the negligence ratio between the two vehicles is appropriate to be 70:30 (the defendant vehicle on the plaintiff vehicle).

Plaintiff

The driver's negligence is committed.

Even if the defendant is liable to compensate for the full amount of the treatment expenses according to the automobile mutual aid agreement.

The plaintiff claims for reimbursement of KRW 562,910, which is actual treatment costs, out of KRW 720,910, the insurance money paid as expenses for hospital treatment and damages.

B. On the attached photograph, whether the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle is negligent or not, the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle have almost stopped in the future.

As such, the accident in this case seems to have occurred while the plaintiff's vehicle was unreasonably changed without securing sufficient space (safety distance).

(A) When the vehicle of the plaintiff was rapidly emitted from the bus-only lane, the vehicle of the defendant is presumed not to have been involved in the accident. There is no sufficient evidence to believe that the driver of the vehicle of the defendant is negligent in moving the vehicle, and the vehicle of the defendant for the household.