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

B. At around 09:40 on March 22, 2014, the Defendant vehicle, while proceeding one-lane of the two-lane road located in the monthly border of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, along the bridged from the boundary of the bridge to the bridged the opposite direction to drive a cab, sprinking the hand to go along the central line in order to get off and drive a taxi, and sprinked the left part of the Plaintiff vehicle running along one-lane of the opposite direction to the right side of the Defendant vehicle. The Plaintiff vehicle shocked C along the road along the direction towards India with its shocking direction to the right side of the Defendant vehicle. On the other hand, the Plaintiff vehicle continued to go up with India, leading to the collision and stop.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). In the instant accident, C died after falling at a point 30 meters away from the shock point of view, and D, which was in India, was injured due to the breakdown of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

C. The Defendant became final and conclusive as the bereaved family members of the Deceased’s 425,000,000 won paid the above amount in the damages claim lawsuit filed against the Defendant by the bereaved family members of the Deceased (Seoul Central District Court 2015da508717).

430,582,930 won in total, including the payment of D medical expenses and agreed fees of KRW 742,930, and other expenses, were paid as insurance proceeds.

Since then, the Defendant filed a petition for deliberation with the Plaintiff at the Motor Vehicle Dispute Resolution Committee, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 86,116,580 to the Defendant on January 2, 2017, according to the deliberation decision that the Plaintiff was 20% of the negligence in the Plaintiff’s vehicle and 80% of the negligence in the Defendant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.