Of the lawsuit of this case, personal compensation insurance money and personal vehicle security.

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s vehicle A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity who entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle B (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. Around 08:32 on February 5, 2013, the driver of the Defendant vehicle driven the Defendant vehicle, driving the Defendant vehicle, and driving the two lanes in front of the D cafeteria in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and driving the two lanes in front of the D cafeteria in Seoul Seocho-gu pursuant to the straight line from the Supreme Court to the Seoul High Court, the front side of the Plaintiff vehicle, which was left left left left at the first line in the opposite direction, was shocked into the right part of the Defendant vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. By June 17, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 7,407,650,00 in total from the costs of the Defendant’s passenger E, F, G, and H’s medical expenses, etc. as the personal liability insurance amount, and KRW 2,653,940 in the amount of the I’s medical expenses, who is the passenger of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, as the automobile injury insurance amount, as the automobile injury insurance amount, and KRW 26,230,000 in the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including each number for those with several numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The part of the amount of indemnity for personal compensation and the amount of indemnity for the insurance proceeds secured by self-owned vehicle, which the Plaintiff asserted that the ratio of negligence of the driver of the Defendant vehicle in relation to the instant accident was 30%, is unlawful as the lawsuit filed in violation of the duty of subrogation stipulated in the mutual agreement on the deliberation of the dispute over indemnity.

B. In full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in No. 8, No. 8, and No. 4, the existence and scope of liability on the ground that the Plaintiff and the Defendant and the mutual-aid business operators were parties to the agreement, and their liability for automobile insurance or automobile mutual-aid as stipulated in the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, etc. are concurrent.