1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Facts of recognition

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to AA car (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and B car (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On January 30, 2015, at around 12:05, the Defendant’s vehicle proceeding four lanes between the four-lanes immediately preceding the shooting distance in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Central Police Station, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, and changed the three-lanes into the three-lanes where the vehicle in the atmosphere was damaged by the vehicle that was going into the atmosphere in the front of the same lane. While proceeding three-lanes, the part on the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle that was going into the intersection, even though the part on the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was going into the intersection, was shocked into the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On March 5, 2015, the Plaintiff paid the insurance proceeds of KRW 1,251,00,000, excluding the amount of KRW 312,000,000, out of the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Based on the fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 3, or the purport of the whole pleadings, the above recognition of the liability for damages is established. It is reasonable to view that the accident of this case caused the error of the driver of the defendant's vehicle who caused the plaintiff's failure to perform his duty of care in driving to change the lane safely while changing the lane, while neglecting his duty of care in driving to change the lane safely.

However, the plaintiff's driver is negligent in neglecting his duty to drive safely by closely examining the movement of the vehicles that pass around the surrounding area, and the plaintiff's act of driving within the limit of 60km in accordance with the straight line at the intersection. However, although the plaintiff's act of driving within the limit of 60km without any signal violation, the driver does not have a duty to drive safely by examining the movement of other vehicles that pass around the surrounding area. Thus, the plaintiff's act alone does not have a duty to drive safely.