1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the damage insurance company against the defendant ELA is dismissed.

2. Defendant A shall pay to the Plaintiff 44,022.

1. Basic facts

A. At around 12:50 on May 25, 2013, B: (a) driven a C Sovia car (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”); (b) entered a two-lane to change the lane while driving a road near the bus stops of the Heacheon-gun, Gyeonggi-gun, by a Japanese fire fighting box, along the three-lanes, from the front section of the city bus stops of the Hancheon-gun; (c) entered the two-lane to change the lane; and (d) going along one-lane in the same direction while driving a two-lane to change the lane, Defendant A’s D Mmat car (hereinafter “Defendant”) entered the front section of the driver’s seat of the Plaintiff vehicle; and (d) the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driven in front of the front part of the driver’s seat of the Plaintiff vehicle; and due to the said shock, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driven by the guard installed at the center of the road.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). B.

Due to the instant accident, E (hereinafter referred to as “victim”) who was on board the top of the steering force of Plaintiff 1’s vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “victim”) suffered from injury, such as pressure duplicating, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “the instant injury”), and was treated as a fixed and genetic beverage between 12 and 3.

C. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive insurance contract with the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and Defendant ELI (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is an insurer who entered into a liability insurance contract with the Defendant vehicle.

From August 5, 2013 to February 3, 2014, the Plaintiff paid total of KRW 11,045,842 to the medical institution that received treatment for the victim, and total of KRW 88,045,842 to the mother of a minor victim on April 28, 2014, including consolation money, lost earnings, and future treatment fees, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 5 evidence, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main safety defense of the Defendant Company

A. As to the summary of the Defendant Company’s assertion, the Defendant Company claims reimbursement according to the Defendant Company’s fault ratio against the Defendant Company, the driver of the Defendant Company, and the insurer.