1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim extended by this court is dismissed.

3. Appeal expenses and interest.

1. The following facts of recognition may be acknowledged either in dispute between the parties or in combination with the overall purport of the pleadings at Gap evidence 1 to 5, Gap evidence 7, 8, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and video.

The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicles owned by A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to C vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On January 21, 2017, around 12:21, 201, the Plaintiff’s vehicle and Defendant’s vehicle facing each other on the roads near Sincho-si D (at that time, snow was stored on the roads; hereinafter “instant road”) caused an accident of collision between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and Defendant’s vehicle facing each other.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

From January 31, 2017 to August 2, 2017, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 1,318,070 for the medical expenses, consolation money, business suspension damage, etc. incurred by the Plaintiff’s driver A, KRW 22,75,200 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, KRW 24,073,270 for the instant accident.

2. As to the plaintiff's claim for the amount of indemnity of this case, the defendant asserted that "the plaintiff and the defendant are parties to the automobile insurance dispute review agreement, and the above agreement is applicable, without filing a claim for the deliberation of the amount of indemnity under the above agreement, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit for the amount of indemnity of this case and violated the obligation of the deliberation of the amount of indemnity of this case under the above agreement, and thus, the lawsuit of this case must be dismissed unfairly.

However, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 7, the plaintiff requested that the defendant be excluded from the application of the obligation of compensation for the accident of this case in relation to compensation for the accident of this case on February 24, 2017, and the defendant's consent is recognized. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

3. Judgment on the merits.