A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with Nonparty A for personal motor vehicles with respect to B NewSM5 motor vehicles owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “First Motor Vehicles”), and the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with Nonparty A for business use with respect to the second motor vehicles owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendant is a manager of BSM5 motor vehicles in the vicinity of BSM.

B. On November 2, 2015, at around 14:49, a traffic accident in the instant case caused an accident where the first vehicle was destroyed by driving the first vehicle via the Cheongju-Tool-dong, Seo-gu, Seodong-dong, and going through the Seoju-dong, Seodong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong, leading to the destruction of the second vehicle. Nonparty D driving the second vehicle at around 17:14 on the same day, driving the second vehicle and driving the second vehicle through the Cheongju-toluth, leading to the destruction of the second vehicle. Nonparty D caused an accident where the second vehicle was destroyed by receiving the Cheongju-do-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong.

hereinafter referred to as "each accident of this case". C.

The Plaintiff, as an insurer on November 11, 2015, paid 4,192,560 won as the cost of parts and repair of the first vehicle on the same day, and 1,535,270 won as the cost of parts and repair of the second vehicle on the same day (hereinafter referred to as “the instant insurance proceeds”). The Plaintiff, as an insurer, paid 4,192,560 won as the insurance proceeds of this case. The Plaintiff, as the insurer, did not have any dispute over the ground for recognition, 1, 2, 4, and 5 evidence (including

The purport of the entire pleadings and arguments

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted by the parties that "the defendant is responsible for the management and supervision of the road so that the vehicle can safely pass, but at the same time, the two lanes of the instant accident occurred at the location where the two-lane each of the instant accidents occurred, the plaintiff allowed the vehicle to pass through the vehicle under the condition that the road is not completed.

As a result, the first and second vehicles were dissatisfed at each of the above points, and each of the accidents of this case occurred.

Therefore, the defendant subrogated to the above A and the Bosch Rexroth Co., Ltd.