1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for this part of the court’s reasoning is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the following to the third fourth part of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, this part of the court’s reasoning is cited under the main sentence of Article 420

“The content of the insurance contract, etc. 1) The insurance contract entered into between the Plaintiff and G with respect to the insured vehicle (hereinafter “the instant insurance contract”) includes the special terms and conditions that limit the driver to be at least 30 years of age. The said special terms and conditions include the Plaintiff’s payment of insurance proceeds for an insured vehicle that occurred while a person under 30 years of age driving the insured vehicle. However, the said special terms and conditions include the fact that “if the insured vehicle was stolen, the damage caused by the insured vehicle’s accident occurred between the time it was stolen and the time it was discovered” as the ground for exception to non-compensation.

2) Meanwhile, at the time of the instant accident, the Defendant was 23 years old.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff, as an insurer of the insured vehicle, claims 66,814,750 won paid as compensation for damages in relation to the instant accident by subrogation of the insurer to the Defendant.

B. As to this, the Defendant was 23 years of age at the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff cannot exercise the right to demand reimbursement as it did not have an obligation to pay insurance money in accordance with the “instant limited driving agreement,” and the Plaintiff asserted that the instant accident constitutes “accident that occurred between stolen and stolen vehicles,” which is an exception to the said special agreement, and thus, the payment of insurance money is justifiable.

C. In addition, the defendant is the insured (insured or driver) of the insurance of this case, so it does not constitute a third party who can claim subrogation from the insurer.