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 a mutual aid business entity that entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with respect to Asi (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer that entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance agreement with respect to B Oral Ba (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. At around 06:40 on June 27, 2015, the Defendant’s vehicle: (a) obstructed the road front of the NAHD branch in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government by the median line from the long-distance flooding area to the long-distance flooding area; (b) re-entered the road beyond the median line to the long-distance flooding area; (c) re-entered the bus road beyond the median line; (d) re-entered the first, safety zone, two, and three lanes, which are the central bus exclusive road, to four lanes horizontally; and (d) the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven at normal intervals depending on the above three lanes, attempted to change the bus line to the four lanes to avoid the Defendant’s vehicle moving at the top, but as such, the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle did not reach the back part of the Defendant’s vehicle.

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

The Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 2.8 million on July 3, 2015 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 7 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The purport of the parties' assertion is that the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence of the defendant who changed the rapid lane, and the defendant, after the defendant's vehicle entering the opposite road, did not take measures such as discovering and accelerating the vehicle.

B. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged in light of the overall purport of the arguments in the above recognition, namely, ① Defendant vehicle attempted to change the bus lanes rapidly to the extent that the median line, bus exclusive lanes, safety zones, two lanes, and three lanes are crossed along four-lanes after reverse driving, and ② Plaintiff vehicle is driving the vehicle.