1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

Claim:

1. Basic facts

A. With respect to AK5 vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to Birsom vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On May 30, 2015, around 15:17, there was an accident in which the two-lanes of the part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which turned back to the left left at one-lanes of the three-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which turned to the left at the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle, and turn to the left at the right side (hereinafter “instant accident”). The two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes.

C. On the three-lane roads where the plaintiff and defendant vehicles run, the two-lanes are both left and left left, and the two-lanes are straight and left-hand, and the three-lanes are the exclusive lanes prior to right-hand.

On June 3, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,512,000 to the Plaintiff’s automobile insurance money.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, Eul evidence No. 1, Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the accident of this case occurred from the total negligence of Defendant vehicle, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of indemnity equivalent to the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant’s instant accident is an accident in which the Plaintiff’s two-lane vehicle that entered the intersection prior to the Defendant’s vehicle that entered the left turn at a one-lane is a sudden change of course and a sub-section collision between the Defendant’s vehicle and the Plaintiff’s vehicle. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s request cannot be complied with as it is by negligence.

3. In full view of the written statements and images of Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 5, and the overall purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 7, the defendant, at the time, was a path to a hotel, at the time of the defendant.