1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. With respect to B-owned vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned vehicles”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to C-owned vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant-owned vehicles”).

B. On December 28, 2016, around 19:10, at the five-lane radius near Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon, the vehicle for the Defendant changed the vehicle from the right side to the four-lane, and the E-vehicle that was proceeding on the four-lane (hereinafter “victimed vehicle”) was parked down, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle following the said vehicle was shocked by the front part of the damaged vehicle.

C. According to the instant accident, the Plaintiff paid KRW 956,00 as the repair cost of the damaged vehicle, KRW 1,685,00 as the repair cost of the Plaintiff vehicle, and KRW 2,692,450 as the medical expenses and agreed amount of the damaged vehicle driver F.

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

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred by combining the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle and the Plaintiff’s fault, which changed rapidly in front of the damaged vehicle, and the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle are about 3:7 degrees.

Therefore, the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff KRW 3,734,415, which is the sum of KRW 5,333,450, such as medical expenses, agreement fees, vehicle repair expenses, etc. paid by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff, and delay damages therefrom.

B. In light of the developments leading up to the occurrence of the instant accident and the location of each vehicle and the degree of collision, which can be seen by the evidence as seen earlier, it is reasonable to deem that the instant accident occurred due to the negligence that the Plaintiff’s driver neglected the duty of front-time watching without securing the safety distance. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is sufficient to deem that the instant accident occurred due to the mistake that the Defendant’s vehicle changed the vehicular lane.