A. The Plaintiff is an insurance company. The Defendant is the owner of CMW 760Li 2003 vehicle (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).

B. On April 6, 2015, the Defendant concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff and the instant vehicle by setting the insurance period from April 6, 2015 to June 10, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant insurance contract”). C.

On April 18, 2015, the Defendant driven the instant vehicle on April 21, 2015, resulting in an accident that falls into the farm waterways next to the road while passing the road adjacent to Geumcheon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). D.

On April 18, 2015, the Defendant received the instant accident by posting the phone to the Plaintiff at around 21:38.

E. On May 8, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the former North Korea Police Station for attempted fraud with the purport that the Defendant intentionally caused the instant accident and subsequently, the Defendant claimed insurance proceeds.

F. On February 2, 2016, the Jeonju District Prosecutors’ Office rendered a disposition to the effect that the Defendant’s suspicion of attempted fraud was groundless for lack of evidence.

Although the plaintiff appealed, the Jeonju branch of the Gwangju High Prosecutors' Office dismissed the plaintiff's appeal on March 25, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] The judgment as to Gap's non-contentious facts, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 9, 13, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 12-2, and the whole purport of the pleading

(a) A related legal insurance contract is an agreement under which one of the parties to pay the agreed insurance premium and the other party to pay certain insurance money or other benefits in the event of an accident not involving property, life or body (Article 638 of the Commercial Act). If the insured event has occurred by intention or gross negligence on the part of the policyholder, the insured or the beneficiary, the insurer is not liable

(Article 659 of the Commercial Act). (b)

Judgment

1. He returned to the instant case and examined whether the instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s intentional or gross negligence, and evidence Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15.