1. Regarding the accidents listed in the separate sheet, a comprehensive automobile insurance contract between the Plaintiff and B for the vehicle C.

1. Basic facts - The defendant is the owner of the GTO vehicle (hereinafter, the defendant vehicle), and the plaintiff is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with B with respect to Cgallon vehicle (hereinafter, the plaintiff vehicle).

- At around 17:13 on September 27, 2014, B, in the vicinity of the outermost road in Yangju-si, caused an accident where the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle was being driven by the Plaintiff while driving the vehicle in the front direction.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The defendant's assertion that the defendant asserted that the defendant accepted the plaintiff's proposal that "the plaintiff's employee accepted the 13 million won amount as insurance money" in the written reply dated February 27, 2015, which was based on the non-repair cost of the defendant's vehicle (amount equivalent to the repair cost paid in lieu of real repair) in accordance with the above insurance contract. However, it is reasonable to view that the defendant asserts that the defendant's repair cost of the defendant's vehicle was 16 million won, since the defendant's repair cost of the original plaintiff was 16 million won.

shall be liable to pay such amount.

B. There is no evidence to prove the fact that the repair cost of the Defendant vehicle or the market price of the Defendant vehicle at the time of the accident was 16 million won.

However, among ① the market price of the Defendant vehicle calculated by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff with regard to the duty to pay KRW 2,000,000 for the remaining two-day transportation cost, excluding the eight-day rental fee paid by the Plaintiff from the market price of KRW 2,100,000, less KRW 235,300 for the scrap metal at the time of scrapping, and ② the rental fee for the ten-day rental period prescribed by the terms and conditions of the said insurance contract.

Therefore, in relation to the above accident, the plaintiff's obligation to pay insurance money to the defendant based on the above insurance contract does not exceed 2,009,700 won, and the defendant is dissatisfied with this, there is a benefit of confirmation.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.