1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is a mutual aid business operator who entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to B (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On March 21, 2017, the Plaintiff vehicle left the third line road near the educational dynamics located in Gangnam-gu, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, at the first lane, the left-hand turn to the right-hand turn, and went through the intersection, and then passed the intersection. The Defendant vehicle, which changed from the two-lanes of the same road to the one-lane, concealed the back part of the right-hand side of the Plaintiff vehicle.

hereinafter referred to as "the accident of this case"

(C) The Plaintiff paid KRW 1,376,00 of the insurance money at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. [The each entry in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the video of the evidence No. 1, 2, and 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings as to

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case occurred due to the unilateral negligence of the defendant's vehicle due to the unreasonable change in the vehicle line, and the defendant asserts that the accident in this case occurred due to the unilateral negligence of the plaintiff's vehicle in the left right line.

B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the purport of the entire arguments by the Plaintiff 1 and the Defendant 1’s negligence ratio, the instant accident was caused by the negligence of the Defendant 1 who neglected the duty of the front line and changed the line to the front line. However, the instant accident was caused by the unilateral negligence of the Defendant 1 who changed the line, in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff 1’s vehicle was an accident that occurred while driving the vehicle entirely through the intersection; (b) the Defendant 1 concealed the rear part of the Plaintiff 1’s right side; and (c) the Plaintiff 1 appears to have been unable to predict that the Defendant 1, who is the latter vehicle, would change the vehicle to the front line to the first one.