The defendant.

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an insurance contract with C Response Cancer Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “SP”) with the content that the insured shall be compensated within the limit of 100,000,000 won in the event of an accident related to parking facility facilities with the representative of the Nonparty Company D (hereinafter “Plaintiff insurance”).

B. The Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive insurance contract (hereinafter “Defendant insurance”) with respect to the vehicle E (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).

C. F, a parking management employee of Nonparty 1, was found to be a restaurant on December 2, 2015, and was parked by the driver of the instant vehicle after receiving the key of the instant vehicle from the driver of the instant vehicle, and shocked the Victim G while parked.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). D.

The Plaintiff paid the total amount of KRW 6,445,990 (the total amount of KRW 300,000,000 for self-paid expenses of the company other than the lawsuit) with the medical expenses of G.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In the case of the Car Insurance Clause II, the Car Insurance Clause provides that “if a person who runs a business of dealing with automobiles, such as parking lot business, uses or manages an insured automobile entrusted as his business, it shall not be deemed an insured person. However, in the case of the Car Compensation I, there is no such provision as above, with respect to the part falling under the Car Compensation I, the parking management personnel constitute the Defendant’s consent insured. However, due to the instant accident, the victim was diagnosed as the “Woo-man-man-man-man-man-man-man-man-man-man-man-man-man-man-in-facte-in-out”, and the victim was diagnosed as the “Man-man-man-man-man-man-man-man-man-in-law”, and the name of the injured whose function is the most close and functionally similar, falls under class 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Automobile Accident Compensation Insurance Guarantee Act (Attached Table 1).