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

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicles driven by A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with D vehicles driven by C (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On September 17, 2015, around 01:03, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driven by a driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the one-lane of the two-lanes of the section of the rice materials tunnel in the Seocho-gu, Seocheon-gu, Changwon-si, Seocheon-si, is running toward vibration from the direction of the Ycheon Village, and after a single accident occurred, the Defendant’s vehicle was parked in the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and due to the shock, the part of the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle was found to be the front part of the vehicle, and the shock part of the front part of the Defendant vehicle was shocked with C and E.

(hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case")

Due to the instant accident, C suffered from the injury requiring medical treatment for about 10 weeks, E suffered from the injury requiring medical treatment for about 6 weeks, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle were destroyed, respectively.

A was prosecuted for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Doing Vehicle) and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two-year imprisonment in October, 2016 by the Changwon District Court Decision 2016Kadan92 on April 26, 2016.

E. The Plaintiff paid each insurance money of KRW 36,307,580 to the Plaintiff’s vehicle repair cost, KRW 7,700,000, KRW 550,960, and KRW 36,307,580 to the Plaintiff’s vehicle driver, for medical treatment cost, and KRW 10,892,140 in relation to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5 to Gap evidence 8-2, Eul evidence 1 to 27, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Even if the Plaintiff’s argument regarding the ratio of negligence was inside a tunnel, so it is difficult to grasp the situation of the vehicle following the accident, and also the shelter space.