1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 260,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from January 28, 2016 to June 29, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the ESF rocketing car owned by A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to CenzE350 automobiles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On January 11, 2016, around 09:40, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle caused a traffic accident that conflicts between the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle and the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”) and the front part of the Plaintiff’s front front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, while driving a non-protection seat line in the direction of the Western University at the new village, on the green signal of the straight-line in the straight-lined vehicle in the direction of the Western University (hereinafter “instant intersection”).

C. At the time of the instant traffic accident, E, a driver of the Defendant vehicle, was charged with summary charges of KRW 1 million due to the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents on the ground that he/she had injured D by negligence who had over-speeded approximately 106 to 110km of speed at the time of the instant traffic accident, and was charged with summary charges of KRW 1,00,000,000. The summary order became final and conclusive (Seoul Western District Court 2016DaMa8888).

Meanwhile, at the time of the instant traffic accident, the Plaintiff’s driver D was subject to a disposition of notice of penalty due to the violation of the duty of safe driving under Article 48 of the Road Traffic Act.

On January 27, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 650,000 as the insurance money of one’s own vehicle, and the Defendant paid KRW 48,560,000, respectively, on June 24, 2016.

[Ground for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry and video (including paper numbers) of Gap 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s alleged vehicle was a state of having entered the intersection in order to live, walk, and turn to the left at the front of entering the instant intersection. The Defendant’s vehicle was a temporary stop before passing through the intersection.