1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The following facts do not conflict between the Parties:

The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with A on B rocketing taxi (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer that entered into a motor vehicle insurance agreement with C on the D bargaining vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. 1) On May 30, 2012, C was under the influence of alcohol of 02:34% of blood alcohol content, and was negligent in disregarding and proceeding the stop signal at the long distance intersection in front of 45 Eart in Chang-dong, Dobong-gu, Seoul, by neglecting the stop signal, and caused the Defendant’s side to the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle due to the left side of the Plaintiff’s front-hand part of A’s driving, which is being driven under signals in accordance with the left part from the left part of his driving direction. Accordingly, the Defendant’s injury was inflicted on E, F, and G and H on the Defendant’s vehicle on board A and the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) The Defendant paid KRW 496,727,650, respectively, to E, F, G and H as insurance proceeds from the instant accident.

C. On November 18, 2016, the Defendant filed a petition with the Plaintiff for a deliberation on the payment of KRW 149,018,295, which is KRW 30% of the insurance money to be paid to the Deliberation Committee on the Settlement of Claim Claim against the Plaintiff by asserting that “the instant accident was caused by concurrent violation of signal signal of C and violation of A’s duty of front-time watch and speed violation.” (2) around January 16, 2017, the Deliberation Committee on the Settlement of Claim Claim against the Plaintiff made a request for deliberation on the payment of KRW 149,018,295, which is KRW 30% of the insurance money to be paid to the Deliberation Committee on the Settlement of Claim Claim. (2) around January 16, 2017, considering C’s signal violations and speed violations of A, the percentage of liability shall be deemed 90% and 10%

3. On February 2, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that “A has no substantial causal relationship between A’s speed violations and the occurrence of the instant accident” and filed a petition for review with the said commission.