The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Of the appeal costs, the part between the plaintiff and the defendant is the supplementary participation.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to D vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”). The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to E vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

B. On October 24, 2019, around 07:40, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle is driving two lanes among the two-lanes located in Seogdong, Seo-gu, Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon. However, the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle, who was immediately going before the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the same direction, turned on the direction direction, etc., and entered the two-lane after approximately four seconds, and the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle, who was going into the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle, shocked on the left side of the Plaintiff’

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On October 30, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 950,900 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (the amount obtained by deducting KRW 200,000 for self-payment) as the insurance money for the instant accident.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 7, each entry or video of evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 4, and purport of whole pleadings]

2. According to the above-mentioned recognition, the accident of this case should not change course when it is likely to obstruct normal traffic of other vehicles entering the same direction at the time of changing course (Article 19(3) of the Road Traffic Act). However, in violation of this provision, it is deemed that the driver of the defendant vehicle who caused a collision caused a change in the lane near the plaintiff vehicle by changing the lane from the nearest distance to the plaintiff vehicle.

Meanwhile, in light of the fact that the Defendant vehicle driver used direction direction, etc. and changed the lane after a certain period of time, the Plaintiff vehicle driver is erroneous in failing to fulfill his duty to avoid collision and the Plaintiff vehicle driver. Considering all circumstances such as the background of the instant accident and the road situation at the place where the instant accident occurred, it is reasonable to 20% of the Plaintiff vehicle driver’s negligence and 80% of the Defendant vehicle driver’s negligence.

Therefore, the defendant is due to the accident of this case.