1. The plaintiff's action against the defendant A shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit;

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with C-owned D-owned vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned vehicles”) with the insured vehicle, including non-insurance injury security.

B. Defendant A entered into an automobile liability insurance contract with the ELM Fire Co., Ltd. on the E-owned vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”)

C. At around 17:00 on July 14, 200, Defendant B driven the Defendant vehicle and made a left turn on the front side of the front city gas in front of the front city in front of the front city in front of the front city in front of the front city in front of the front city in front of the front city in front of the front city in front of the front city in front of the front city in front of the front city in front of the front city in front of the front city, and the left turn on the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in front of the opposite vehicle in front of the front city in front of the front city in front of the front city in front of the front city.

From March 31, 2001 to November 23, 2001, the Plaintiff paid the total of KRW 23,210,000 for damages, and KRW 19,037,60 for medical expenses, KRW 42,247,60 for damages, and received KRW 7,708,910 for liability insurance money from the ELM Fire Co., Ltd., the insurer of Defendant A.

E. The Plaintiff filed a claim for reimbursement against the Defendants (this Court Decision 2003Gadan23962) and was sentenced to a favorable judgment on October 20, 2004. The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[Evidence] Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument

2. As to the claim against Defendant A, the Plaintiff sought reimbursement for the above KRW 34,538,690 and delay damages against Defendant A.

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the claim against the defendant A.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 2 (including additional numbers), Defendant A was declared bankrupt on September 18, 2014 by this Court Decision No. 2013Hah1453, Nov. 3, 2014, and decided to grant immunity by the Court No. 1453, Nov. 3, 2014.