Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded the automobile insurance contract with D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. On February 9, 2019, around 19:25, the Defendant’s vehicle parked in the parking space of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the parking lot near the Busan Jin-gu, Busan, and the Defendant’s vehicle was behind the Plaintiff’s vehicle and shocked the Defendant’s vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

The owner of the Defendant vehicle is G, and the person operating the Defendant vehicle at ordinary times is G, but H, his father, at the time of the instant accident, H, was driving the Defendant vehicle, and H was boarding the Defendant vehicle.

In the instant accident, the Plaintiff sustained injury from the Defendant’s passenger H due to the instant accident, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,462,210 as medical expenses five times from March 22, 2019 to May 30, 2019, and paid KRW 1,350,000 as damages on April 9, 2019.

E. On August 19, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a request for deliberation with the committee for deliberation on the dispute over liability for automobile insurance (hereinafter “Deliberation Committee”) with the Defendant as the Defendant as the Defendant. The Deliberation Committee set the negligence ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle regarding the instant accident at 85%: 15%: (a) stated that “The amount should be settled separately because there is a dispute as to whether a claim arises or not.”

(f) The Defendant did not raise any separate objection by September 16, 2019, which was the closing date of the instant decision.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. (1) The Defendant did not raise an objection to the instant decision by the closing date, and the instant decision was already finalized by the Do of the closing date.

Therefore, it is true.