1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who was driving a Cbee or a car (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is an insurer who concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to a vehicle owned by Nonparty D E (hereinafter “Defendant’s automobile”).

B. D around June 15, 201, around 18:30 on June 15, 201, driving the Defendant’s automobile on the part of the Defendant, and driving at the vicinity of three-distance entrance to the other dynamics of Jinju.

At the time, the plaintiff's automobile driven was stopped for the signal atmosphere of the plaintiff's automobile.

D did not discover the plaintiff's automobile due to negligence in Jeonju-si, and it was found that the front part of the defendant's automobile was concealed as the front part of the plaintiff's automobile.

(hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case"). [Ground of recognition] There is no dispute between the parties.

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) The Plaintiff suffered injury due to the instant accident, such as salt, tensions, and tensions by analogy, and the Defendant is obligated to compensate for the Plaintiff’s loss as the insurer of the Defendant’s automobile. 2) Specifically, the Plaintiff’s loss incurred by the Plaintiff, as the insurer of the Defendant’s automobile, (i) KRW 82,082,386 due to the loss of labor capacity of 25% for 2 years; (ii) KRW 4,081,240 due to the injury; (iii) KRW 6,765,680 due to the instant accident; and (iv) KRW 35,00,000 due to the instant accident, consolation money should be paid.

B. The Defendant’s injury alleged by the Plaintiff constitutes a king disease, and there is no causal relationship with the instant accident.

3. Determination

A. In a case where the perpetrator’s side of the relevant legal principles contests that the subsequent disability of the victim’s assertion was caused by the king, the perpetrator’s assertion is the denial of the causal relationship under the litigation law. Therefore, the victim’s affirmative causal relationship exists, i.e., the relevant accident and the injury.

(b).