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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the D Kakman vehicle owned by C (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned vehicle”). The Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the F Baki vehicle owned by E (hereinafter “Defendant-owned vehicle”).

B. On December 22, 2016, G: (a) around 18:55 on December 22, 2016, G operated the Defendant’s vehicle on the edge of the alleyway adjacent to an I cafeteria located in the Gunsan-si H; (b) caused an accident in which the part of the lower part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped behind the lower part of the lower part of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was the front part of the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

At the time of the accident, the driver J, K, and L (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “J, etc.”) was aboard the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

C. The Plaintiff paid to J KRW 1,059,950 for medical expenses, KRW 872,590 for medical expenses, and KRW 772,00 for the agreed amount, and KRW 962,510 for medical expenses, and KRW 4,439,050 for the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 4, 8, 9, 10, Eul's evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleading, claim, and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant, the insurer of the defendant vehicle who caused the instant accident, has the obligation to pay 4,439,050 won to J, etc. with medical expenses and agreed money as compensation.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that since J et al. did not have any injury due to the accident of this case, medical expenses and agreed amount cannot be paid.

B. In light of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the J et al. suffered injury to the extent that the instant accident occurred, and that due to which the J et al. received medical treatment, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim based on this premise is without merit.

① This case.