1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part pertaining to the participation in the litigation is the intervenor joining the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 201, the Plaintiff entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract (hereinafter “instant automobile insurance contract”) between the Plaintiff’s Intervenor and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, setting the insurance period from November 30, 201 to November 30, 201 with respect to C automobiles owned by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor.

B. On March 13, 2012, the Plaintiff paid KRW 30,770,000 insurance money to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor on the ground of the theft of the said passenger car.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) on January 12, 2012, the Defendant stolen a passenger car owned by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor from the D parking lot in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu; and (b) the Plaintiff paid KRW 30,770,000 insurance money to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor on the ground of theft of the said passenger car; (c) and (d) sought reimbursement for the payment of the above insurance money to the Defendant pursuant to

3. We examine the judgment: there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant stolen the said passenger vehicle of the Plaintiff’s Intervenor; rather, according to the entries and the purport of the entire pleadings in subparagraph 1, the Defendant purchased the said passenger vehicle in the front of the restaurant operated by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seo-gu, the Seoul District Court at around 11:00 on June 11, 2013, at around 28,50,000, the Defendant acquired the said passenger vehicle from the Plaintiff’s Intervenor and acquired it by fraud.

“Along with the fact that the Plaintiff was sentenced to three years of imprisonment due to criminal facts, etc., according to the above facts, the Plaintiff is merely a person who acquired the said vehicle from the Defendant, and thus, the Plaintiff paid it to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor in spite of the fact that the Plaintiff could not pay the money for theft. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.