1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Accident circumstances, etc.;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to a motor vehicle A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) with the insurance period from January 13, 2016 to January 13, 2017.

The above insurance contract contains a special agreement for warranty for automobile injury, and a special agreement for warranty for self-vehicle damage.

The defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to the large truck B (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant vehicle").

B. At around 05:58 on January 3, 2017, C, while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle, led to a traffic accident leading to the backside of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”) leading to the following: (a) while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle and driving the Gyeongbuk-do in the vicinity of the Southern-si, Seoul, into Chuncheon-do.

As a result, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was destroyed by a fire in the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and C suffered from injury, such as an external wound, and an injury to the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that one and the rear part of the Defendant’s vehicle, etc. at the time of the instant accident, did not turn on due to the breakdown, and C was difficult to identify the Defendant’s vehicle prior to the front section.

These circumstances act as a cause of the occurrence of the instant accident, and it is reasonable to view that the degree of contribution was 30%.

Since the Plaintiff paid KRW 126,873,450 to C with insurance proceeds, the Defendant, who is the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff, the indemnity holder, KRW 38,062,035 equivalent to the above insurance proceeds, and delay damages.

B. Each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 8, and 9 (including a branch number) is not sufficient to view that one of the following parts of the defendant vehicle at the time of the instant accident was not in a state of failure, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

In addition, there is no other evidence to deem that there was any negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle on the instant accident.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion