1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. Around 08:50 on June 16, 2012, C driven a D vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff-related vehicle”) and driven a road front of the exit station No. 1 located in the relay of 500 Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, in the direction of the river basin in the direction of the river basin. On the first line, C was faced with the network E-driving FOba (hereinafter “lurba”), and the Deceased died on July 20, 2012, while receiving treatment due to the said accident.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). B.

The Defendants are parents of the Deceased, and the Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

C. The Plaintiff paid 61,181,640 won for the medical expenses until the death of the deceased on the part of the Defendant as advance payment, and agreed to refund the above advance payment if it is found that the Plaintiff was not responsible for the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the occurrence of the instant accident as a result of the subsequent accident investigation.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3 through 11, Eul evidence 2 through 8 (including branch numbers if there are provisional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(ii) the testimony of the witness G, the result of the verification of the evidence No. 1 (B) of the witness G, the purport of the entire pleadings;

2. Whether the plaintiff's liability is recognized, and limitation on liability

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s accident occurred due to the shock of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, while the Plaintiff’s end-on of the deceased’s end-on, who had been driven by the front side of the crosswalk, was going to go beyond the center line in order to overtake the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

Therefore, the above accident was caused by the total negligence of the deceased, and since the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle did not violate his duty of care, the plaintiff is not liable for damages.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to return the medical expenses paid by the Plaintiff as the heir of the Deceased.

B. The evidence of the above-mentioned Paragraph 1 as a whole is examined.