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

A. On May 4, 2016, the Defendant: (a) while driving a D-car owned by the Plaintiff around 06:30 on May 4, 2016, the Defendant: (b) violated and shocking Nonparty G, who was a bicycle on the road near the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E-gu, with a pedestrian driving signal, who was a walker on a pedestrian driving signal, thereby causing injury to the said G by violating and shocking the vehicle stop signal (hereinafter “instant accident”); and (c) G has the right to claim damages against the Defendant for tort.

As an insurer of a non-party H I vehicle, the Plaintiff has paid KRW 41,182,370 so far in relation to the above injury to G, and it is expected that the insurance will be paid additionally as the compensation for G has not been completed.

The plaintiff acquired a claim for damages due to a tort against the defendant by G within the scope of KRW 41,182,370 of the insurance money already paid once in accordance with the subrogation legal principle of insurer subrogation under Article 682 of the Commercial Act. The defendant is obligated to pay damages to the plaintiff KRW 41,182,370 of the damages and delay damages.

B. In order to recognize subrogation by the insurer against a third party as stipulated in Article 682 of the Commercial Act, the insurer should be liable for paying insurance proceeds to the insured. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion alone is unclear as to why the Plaintiff, the insurer of the IF owned the H, paid the above insurance proceeds to G.

In addition, the Plaintiff asserted the claim for damages due to the tort against the Defendant by G acquired by the insurer’s subrogation doctrine due to the cause of the claim in this case. However, the circumstance or evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to properly determine the nature and scope of the Defendant’s tort liability.

As above, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be accepted.

2. Conclusion