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

A. The following facts may be acknowledged as either in dispute between the parties or in Gap evidence No. 1 by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings:

1) The Plaintiff’s vehicle C owned by Nonparty B around 2005 (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).

B around 16:00 on March 31, 2005, the insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with the Defendant. Around 16:00 on March 31, 2005, the Defendant requested the automobile rent of the instant vehicle to the Deputy Secretary-General of Daejeon Sung-gu E, Daejeon. On the same day, the Plaintiff was found to be the owner of the instant vehicle, and the Plaintiff was the owner of the vehicle, and the said vehicle was stolen by receiving the key of the vehicle from F, an employee of the said Deputy Director-General, who was the owner of the vehicle.

3) On May 10, 2005, the Plaintiff paid KRW 25 million to B on May 10, 2005. (b) According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to compensate for damages incurred by B due to neglecting this duty of care and causing damage to B arising from the theft of the instant vehicle, and the Plaintiff who paid the insurance money to B on the ground that (a) the Plaintiff acquired the right to the Defendant within the insurance payment limit (Article 682(1) of the Commercial Act), and barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 24.1 million, excluding the remainder of KRW 9 million, 25 million, which is the remainder of the amount paid by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff, who had already received payment from F from the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 25 million).

2. As to the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription, the defendant's defense that the plaintiff's claim has expired by the ten-year extinctive prescription, the defendant's starting point and starting point for the claim for damages to be acquired by the insurer under Article 682 of the Commercial Act.