A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with respect to a non-party B (not less than 26 years of age, and not less than 10 years of age) whose name is the non-party B (in addition to the terms and conditions of the married couple’s limited agreement).

B. The Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with Nonparty D (at least 28 years of age, one insured person, and one designated person) with respect to a registered insured vehicle C (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

C. On October 10, 2015, Nonparty E driving the Defendant vehicle at around 21:40, and driving the three-lane road in front of the 619 Nignggg-dong unit at a speed of about 90 km from the direction of the former station to the direction of the region, Nonparty E, who changed the lane from the two-lane to the one-lane in front of the Defendant vehicle, caused an accident attributable to the latter part of the right part of the Plaintiff’s right part of the vehicle, which changed from the two-lane to the one-lane in front of the latter direction.

(hereinafter “instant accident”) D.

On October 30, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 26,420,00 to B under the instant insurance contract, and then filed a petition for deliberation with the committee for deliberation on disputes over reimbursement of automobile insurance (hereinafter “instant committee”) in accordance with the mutual agreement on deliberation of disputes over reimbursement of automobile insurance (hereinafter “instant agreement”) to which both the Plaintiff and the Defendant have joined.

E. On August 22, 2016, the instant commission deliberated and decided on the instant accident’s liability ratio to Plaintiff 40% and Defendant 60%, and the Defendant paid KRW 15,792,000 to the Plaintiff.

F. On November 11, 2016, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a “written request for special exception to the exemption from the obligation to deliberate on indemnity disputes” on the ground that the Plaintiff wishes to proceed with the litigation in order to challenge the rate of negligence regarding the instant accident, and on the same day, the Defendant is so on.