1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a federation established pursuant to Articles 59 and 60 of the Passenger Transport Service Act, which is a mutual aid business entity of D-si (hereinafter “Plaintiff-si”).

The defendant is the insurer of the bus E (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant bus").

B. On April 28, 2008, around 10:05, Plaintiff taxi (F) entered a two-lane in order to damage vehicles parked on the front line of the Southern-gu Incheon Metropolitan City G, from the third lane of the seat of the seat of the seat of the seat of the seat of the seat of the seat of the seat of the seat of the city and from the third lane of the seat of the seat of the seat of the seat of the seat of the seat of the city, and returned again to the third lane, and proceeded over the two-lane and the three-lane.

Defendant Bus (A driver) proceeded along two lanes on the same date, at the same room, at the same time, and at the same room. As seen earlier, in order to drive the Plaintiff taxi running in the front bank, the vehicle was changed to one lane, and the part of the part on the right-hand side of the I Truck (A driver J; hereinafter “I Truck”) that took precedence over one lane was shocked into the left-hand side of the Defendant bus, and the collision was made with the K Cwing Truck (A driver L; hereinafter “IF”) that took place in one lane above the center line.

(hereinafter “instant traffic accident”). C.

1) If the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,671,800 to the owner of Nonparty 1’s wing Truck, then on December 11, 2009, the Plaintiff provided a mutual agreement on MM against the Defendant (hereinafter “mutual agreement”).

) Based on the M Deliberation Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “Deliberation Committee”).

2) At that time, the Plaintiff filed a claim for reimbursement of KRW 3,671,800 with NN on the receipt number of deliberation. (2) At that time, the Plaintiff was investigated as having changed the lane from the distance where the Plaintiff’s taxi was investigated as having discovered and sufficiently suspended the lane of the previous Plaintiff taxi, and the Plaintiff’s taxi driver was sent for suspicion.