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 concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”). The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. Around 07:20 on December 28, 2016, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven two lanes in front of the Blackdong in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

The defendant vehicle is running the three lanes of the above three lanes.

The front right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was driven by the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle, was parked on the front side of the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle while avoiding the front vehicle and changing the course to a two-lane.

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

On April 10, 2017, the Defendant applied for the deliberation and mediation of the instant accident against the Plaintiff, and the E Committee rendered a decision to deliberate and coordinate on April 10, 2017 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s fault ratio of 20:80.

On January 24, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 983,00,00, after deducting KRW 200,000 from the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident, as insurance proceeds. On November 24, 2017, the Defendant paid KRW 946,640 to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case occurred entirely because the vehicle of this case changed the lane so that it does not interfere with the plaintiff's vehicle in which the defendant's vehicle is directly located, even though it changed the lane, the accident of this case occurred.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the negligence ratio of the plaintiff vehicle is more than 20% since the accident of this case occurred due to the violation of the duty of safe driving even though the plaintiff vehicle could have predicted the change of course of the defendant vehicle.

B. The above facts based on the negligence ratio and the evidence as seen earlier.