1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 6, 2013, around 13:50 on October 6, 2013, the Plaintiff had a collision between the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the rear part of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”) while driving a foodlight vehicle (F; hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. G Co., Ltd., to which the Defendant’s comprehensive automobile insurance policy was subscribed, requested the H Deliberation Committee to deliberate and coordinate on the I Co., Ltd., for which the Plaintiff’s comprehensive automobile insurance policy was subscribed (hereinafter “I”). In the foregoing deliberation and coordination, the amount of the Plaintiff’s fault ratio 90%, the Defendant’s fault ratio 10%, and the amount the I should pay to the Defendant was determined as KRW 1,623,600.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. (i) The Plaintiff’s claim is the Plaintiff’s insurer who is not the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff’s right or legal relationship is not related to the Plaintiff’s right or legal relationship, and Doll H Deliberation Committee’s dispute over the rate of negligence determined by H Deliberation Committee is pertaining to the past legal relationship. Therefore, it is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

B. (1) First, we examine the assertion that there is no benefit in confirmation since the lawsuit for confirmation of this case is not related to the Plaintiff’s rights or legal relations.

As alleged by the Defendant (see the following subparagraph 3. A.), when the Plaintiff assumes that it is a perpetrator, the Plaintiff is jointly and severally liable for damages that the Plaintiff, the insured, bears against the Defendant, and that the insurer, the insurer which takes over both the liability (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da53754, Oct. 28, 2010). However, even if the Defendant claimed against I for the payment of damages against I, the Plaintiff is also the same.