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 a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to AK5 vehicles (attached Form 1 “Defendant vehicle”; hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to B (attached Form 4 “Defendant vehicle”; hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. The Plaintiff’s driver driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle while under the influence of 0.113% alcohol concentration, and changed the vehicle line to two lanes at the point of 407 kilometers in the direction of the lower line while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle along the three-lanes of the C Vehicle at the right side of the vehicle running along the two-lanes while driving along the three-lanes of the 407 lane in the direction of the Sinnam-gu Seoul at Sungnam-dong, Seonam-gu, Sungnam-gu, Seoul. On March 4, 2015, the Plaintiff’s driver fell into the upper part of the Plaintiff’s left side of the vehicle (attached accident site map “Y2”), and thereafter, the Plaintiff’s vehicle moved back to the half direction to the lower part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and stopped at a one-lane and two-lane speed in the direction of the driving and right side of the vehicle.

(hereinafter “1st accident”). C. The Defendant’s vehicle running along the two-lanes thereafter, as the front part of the left-hand side of the Defendant’s vehicle, has shocked the front part of the right-hand side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was stopped due to the said first accident (hereinafter “2nd accident”).

After paying the insurance money of Defendant vehicle due to the second accident, the Defendant filed a request for deliberation by the committee for deliberation on the disputes over indemnity against the Plaintiff. On August 3, 2015, the committee for deliberation on indemnity indemnity decided on the rate of negligence between Plaintiff vehicle and Defendant vehicle 40:60.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s asserted vehicle changed the vehicle line at the accident site, and, after the collision with C vehicle, the vehicle was stopped over a two-lanes from the front part of the Plaintiff vehicle after the collision with C, the central separation zone was shocked, and the vehicle was stopped over a two-lane.