1. On July 23, 2016: (a) around 23:23, the damage of the DMW vehicle caused by a traffic accident that occurred on the roads near the CB at Gwangju-si.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 18, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract for securing self-vehicle loss [the insurance period from March 3, 2006 to February 28, 2017, the vehicle price of KRW 74,000,000, and KRW 65,780,000, which is the insurance amount to be paid at the time of disposal of total damages (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with E, the Defendant’s spouse, as the insured; and the Defendant as the registered insured.

B. According to Article 23 of the Insurance Terms and Conditions contained in the instant insurance contract, a policyholder or the insured’s intentional injury is not a beneficiary of insurance proceeds.

(hereinafter “instant insurance terms and conditions”). C.

E, around 23:23 minutes on July 12, 2016, in the vicinity of the road near C, driving a friendly F on the top of the instant vehicle in the direction of the steering force of the instant vehicle and discovering a honded object from the bend side to the right side of the bend side with the right side of the bend side, causing a traffic accident that conflicts with the retaining wall three times, and due to the shock, E and F were injured, and there was an accident that the instant vehicle was damaged by all.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). 【No dispute over the ground for recognition】 Each entry in Gap’s Evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 15, 18, 19 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), witness F’s testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the part of the claim for the insurance money on the self-vehicle damage and the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. At the time of the instant accident, Plaintiff E, the first collision with the retaining wall at the time of the instant accident, and intentionally conflict with the retaining wall and damaged the instant vehicle.

Therefore, in accordance with the insurance contract of this case, the plaintiff has no obligation to pay insurance money to the defendant for his own vehicle loss caused by the second and third collision.