1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff is an insurer (operator) who has entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid contract with respect to B bus (hereinafter “Plaintiff bus”), and the Defendant is the owner of C Passenger Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

On July 8, 2014, around 19:35, the Plaintiff’s bus was placed in front of the 258 ambling 1 line near the ambling market in Ansan-si, an accident occurred in the driver’s seat door, which was opened on the road and parked in the Defendant’s vehicle in front of the road (hereinafter “instant accident”).

The Plaintiff, as the insurer of the Plaintiff bus at the time of the instant accident, paid KRW 10,604,720 in total, from September 18, 2014 to March 18, 2016, as compensation for damages, such as medical expenses for shoulder injuries, at the request of D, which was aboard the Plaintiff bus at the time of the instant accident, and returned KRW 1,107,360 from the D non-damage Insurance Co., Ltd., the insurer of the Defendant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff's assertion that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings is established, and the plaintiff's assertion that the accident of this case is a whole of the defendant's vehicle's driver's seat in the situation of plaintiff's bus.

In the instant accident, in order to ensure a balanced balance between Plaintiff bus D and a fishing vessel D, the bus seat and power was inflicted on the shoulder part, and thus, the Defendant paid 9,497,360 won (=10,604,720-1, 107,360 won) out of the insurance money that the Plaintiff paid to D, which has yet to be repaid (=10,604,720 won) and damages for delay.

Judgment

The Plaintiff asserted that D suffered serious injury above the shoulder part as above, but if the purport of the entire pleading is added to the video of No. 1 (accident video) of the Plaintiff’s bus, the instant accident is so-called the end part of the Defendant’s driver’s seat, which was opened on the right side of the Plaintiff’s bus, is even in contact.