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

A. The Plaintiff is the driver of the Plaintiff’s B vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”), and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the Defendant’s vehicle C (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).

B. On December 20, 2015, around 06:10, at the center of Ansan-si, the Plaintiff driven the Plaintiff’s side and turned to the left from the southan ICT room to the right-side bank, there was an accident that conflicts between the front part of the Defendant’s front part of the Defendant’s side where the Plaintiff driven two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes between the inner bank and the front part of the Plaintiff’s front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. The owner of the Plaintiff’s vehicle registration certificate is D.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, and 5 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. Under the premise that the actual owner of the Plaintiff’s vehicle is the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff claimed compensation of KRW 15,818,744, additional repair expenses, KRW 4,00,00, and KRW 5,938,684, and KRW 4,00,00,00 for business suspension damages, and KRW 29,757,428, which are the sum of KRW 4,757,428, on the premise that the Plaintiff is the actual owner of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and that the Defendant is not the Plaintiff’s owner of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

B. The Plaintiff submitted “the waiver of rights and confirmation of delegation of legal proceedings” received from D as the owner on the Plaintiff’s registration certificate, and asserted that it is the actual owner. However, even according to the waiver of rights and the confirmation of delegation of legal proceedings, “the actual user and the management subject of the Plaintiff’s vehicle A.” and it does not state that only the actual user of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the management subject accordingly belong to the Plaintiff, and there is no objective document to confirm that the Plaintiff is the “owner” or the “owner” beyond the status of the driver or the manager of the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the part of the Plaintiff, and instead, there is no objective document to confirm that the Plaintiff is the “owner”