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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

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

B. Around October 21, 2013, the driver of the Defendant vehicle driven the Defendant vehicle and driven the Plaintiff vehicle in the same direction at the intersection where the vehicle was traveling along one lane among the two lanes in the parallel of the parallel of the parallel of the parallel of the parallel of the parallel of the parallel of the parallel of the parallel of the parallel of the parallel of the parallel of the parallel of the parallel of the parallel of the parallel of the Gangseo-gu, Seowon-gun.

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

On November 21, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,300,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries or videos of Gap's evidence 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. Since the committee for deliberation on the dispute over indemnity before the filing of the instant lawsuit by the Defendant decided that the rate of negligence between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was 10:90 in the instant accident, it is effective as the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the same content as that of the instant decision, and the said agreement also includes an agreement on the filing of a lawsuit.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it was filed against the agreement of the non-committee.

B. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 7 and 8, in the instant accident, the Plaintiff filed a request for deliberation with the committee for deliberation on the ratio of negligence between the Plaintiff and the Defendant in the instant accident. The said committee decided the ratio of negligence between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s vehicle to 10:90, and the said decision became final and conclusive because the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not file a lawsuit within 14 days after being served with the decision. However, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the liability lies on the ground that the liability for the automobile insurance or the automobile mutual aid as stipulated in the Automobile Accident Compensation Guarantee Act was concurrent.