1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business operator who entered into an automobile mutual aid contract with respect to B vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

B. On March 16, 2014, the Plaintiff’s driver, while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle at around 13:10 on March 16, 2014 and changing the lane from the three lanes to the two lanes on the front of the Songpa-gu, Songpa-gu, Seoul, the Plaintiff’s driver conflict with the Defendant’s vehicle that changed the two lanes from the first lane to the two lanes on the above road.

(hereinafter referred to as the "accident in this case"). A driver of the plaintiff's vehicle C and D/E aboard the plaintiff's vehicle suffered injuries due to the accident in this case.

C. By May 28, 2014, the Plaintiff paid C 1,607,610 won for medical expenses incurred from the instant accident, i.e., agreement amounting to 1,607,610 won for the medical expenses, i.e., agreement amounting to 607,610 won + agreement amounting to 1,00,000 won) and 2,161,480 won for D (=agreement amounting to 1,161,480 won + agreement amounting to 1,00,000 won) and 363,900 won for E (agreement amounting to 13,900 won + agreed amounting to 350,000 won).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. As to the claim against the Defendant, who is the insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, against the Defendant, who is the mutual aid business operator of the Defendant’s vehicle, the Defendant asserts that the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it violates the subordinate agreement under the mutual agreement on the deliberation of the dispute over the reimbursement of automobile insurance.

B. Considering the overall purport of the arguments in the statement No. 6 No. 6 of the judgment, the disputes arising between the insurer or the mutual-aid businessman on the grounds that the Plaintiff and the Defendant and the mutual-aid businessman were parties to the agreement and their liability for automobile insurance or automobile mutual-aid as stipulated in the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, etc. are concurrent, shall be reasonable.