2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is a company running the automobile rental business, and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract for the luminous car A owned by the luminous car company (hereinafter “instant melting vehicle”).

B. On September 17, 2013, due to the instant accident caused by the instant Maritime Vehicle, the C Vehicle owned by B was destroyed, and became repaired until September 30, 2013 from the date of the said accident, and the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the lease of DNS vehicle between September 17, 2013 and the period of use from September 17, 2013 to September 15, 2013.

(hereinafter “instant loan agreement”). 【No dispute exists, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 2,782,00 (=214,000/day x 13 days) as the Defendant, who is the insurer of the instant sea vehicle, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the rental fee for 13 days according to the instant loan agreement, even though the Plaintiff claimed for the rental fee for the luminous Co., Ltd., the owner of the instant sea vehicle, but refused to pay the rental fee for the luminous car.

B. According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the instant lease contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and B, and the Plaintiff may seek payment of the rent for the vehicle against B, and the Plaintiff may seek damages equivalent to the rent for the vehicle against the Defendant, the insurer of the instant vehicle. However, there is no assertion against the Plaintiff directly against the Defendant (the Plaintiff did not comply with the instant claim two times at the date of the second and fourth pleading of the trial, even if the Plaintiff was ordered to clarify the grounds for the instant claim from the court twice). The Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit without any further need.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.