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 a mutual aid association that entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with D for business purpose with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid holder who entered into a mutual aid contract with respect to E vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On November 11, 2015, around 18:50, there was an accident where the Plaintiff’s vehicle conflicts with the rear part of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. The Plaintiff paid KRW 4,284,000 in total with the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 6 through 9, Eul evidence 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The main point of the parties' assertion conflicts between the defendant's vehicle driving a two-lane while the plaintiff's vehicle moved in a two-lane and the defendant's vehicle changing the two-lane, thereby changing the vehicle's lane rapidly, and the part behind the left end of the plaintiff's vehicle and the right side of the defendant's vehicle. The defendant's fault ratio in the accident of this case is 90%.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that since the plaintiff's vehicle, which was bypassing to the right intersection while the defendant's vehicle was in a two-lane, entered the two-lanes, only one unilateral negligence of the plaintiff's vehicle is recognized.

B. In light of the background of the instant accident, the situation immediately after the collision, and the damaged parts of the original Defendant’s vehicle, etc., the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the instant accident occurred by changing the vehicle from the vehicle to the two-lane, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

Furthermore, as alleged by the defendant, the plaintiff's vehicle that was bypassing to the right intersection while the defendant's vehicle driving in the two-lanes as argued by the defendant is driving on the right intersection.