1. The part concerning the confirmation of the non-existence of the reimbursement obligation among the counterclaim of this case shall be dismissed.

2. An accident described in Annex 1(1).

1. Presumed factual basis

A. On January 1, 2016, the Plaintiff concluded an insurance contract with Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”) and Defendant C K3 Motor Vehicles (hereinafter “instant insured Motor Vehicles”) listed in attached Form 1(2) (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

The insurance contract of this case contains a special agreement with a age limit of at least 35 years that sets the driver's age as a special agreement.

According to the special terms and conditions of the instant insurance contract, in cases where a special agreement which limits the driver's age to the age of 35 is concluded, the insurance proceeds other than the personal compensation I (liability insurance) will not be paid to an insured person under the age of 35 with respect to an accident that occurred while driving the instant insured vehicle.

B. At around 08:50 on June 14, 2016, Defendant B, an employee of Defendant A, driven the instant insured vehicle, and made a non-protective left-hand turn at the intersection of the Jinho-gun, Gyeong-gun, Jin-gun, Gyeong-gun, Jin-gun, in the middle of the central shooting distance from the west-gu, Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun, Gyeongnam-gun, to the central shooting distance, while driving the instant insured vehicle, Defendant B, an employee of Defendant A, compared to the amount of D driving e, which was directly under the direct operation of the Jin-gun, from the west-si, Gyeong-gun, Jin-gun, Gyeong-gun.

The amount of a passenger car, which was low for the shock, has been transferred to the right side, and the above D died by shocking the right side, and the passenger F suffered the wound.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

Defendant B was Girs who were 24 years of age at the time of the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1, 2, 4-8 evidence (including satisfy number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The Defendants asserted that, since they did not dispute the Plaintiff’s main claim, this case’s main claim is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

Before the filing of the instant lawsuit, the Defendants asserted the payment of insurance money under the instant insurance contract and filed the instant lawsuit.