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. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with A with respect to B vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”). The Defendant is the insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to C vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On July 11, 2014, around 22:10, the Defendant’s vehicle driven the same road while driving three lanes in front of the E-owned station located in the north-gu, Northern-si, and entered the two-lane by changing the lane rapidly without using an instruction of defect direction, etc., in order for the taxi driving along the same road. As a result, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving the two-lane due to the sudden stop and the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle and the rear part of the left part of the vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On September 1, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,350,000 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident to A.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, video of Gap evidence 6, purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts, the accident of this case occurred by the whole negligence of the defendant vehicle that rapidly changed the lane without any prior notice. Thus, the defendant, who is the insurer of the defendant vehicle, is liable to compensate for the amount of damages equivalent to the cost of repairing the plaintiff vehicle due to the accident of this case that occurred during the operation of the defendant vehicle.

B. As to this, the Defendant alleged that the Defendant’s liability should be limited to 70%, since the Plaintiff’s vehicle has failed to neglect the duty of front-time watch and not driving the concession, but there is no evidence to prove that there was any negligence by the Plaintiff’s vehicle that contributed to the occurrence of the instant accident, and therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is not accepted, according to the video of the evidence No. 6, since the instant accident occurred after the Defendant’s vehicle attempted to change the lane, it is recognized that the instant accident occurred after the Defendant’s vehicle tried to change