A. The Plaintiff, along with D, is running a motor vehicle maintenance business with the trade name “F” in Seo-gu, Daejeon.

The defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with G concerning H vehicles (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”).

B. At around 9:00 a.m. on January 29, 2018, the Defendant vehicle exchanged the engine error and the malfunction at the workplace of the Plaintiff and D above.

C. Around 08:50 on January 30, 2018, the Defendant: (a) caused an accident in which part of the engine was destroyed due to a fire that occurred during the operation in Seo-gu I, Seo-gu, Daejeon (hereinafter “instant accident”); (b) the Defendant paid KRW 13,185,100 insurance proceeds to G; and (c) the Plaintiff and D exchanged the engine errors and the strings of the Defendant’s vehicle in exchange for the engine errors and the strings; and (d) filed a lawsuit seeking reimbursement amount equivalent to the said insurance proceeds against the Plaintiff and D, asserting that the instant accident occurred due to the wind that the Plaintiff and D did not properly control the engine errors and the strings of the Defendant’s vehicle; and (b) filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff and D with the Seoul Central District Court 2018Ga2036968.

On July 16, 2018, the said court rendered a decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “instant decision on performance recommendation”) and the said decision was served on the Plaintiff and D on July 19, 2018.

D on July 26, 2018, however, although the Plaintiff filed an objection by mistake, the decision of performance recommendation against the Plaintiff became final and conclusive on August 3, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff alleged by the parties that the accident in this case was not caused by the negligence of the plaintiff and D in the course of exchanging the engine error against the defendant's vehicle, and therefore, the compulsory execution based on the decision of performance recommendation in this case should not be denied. Accordingly, since the accident in this case occurred by the plaintiff and D's negligence, the defendant's decision of performance recommendation in this case is justified.