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 that entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with C with respect to the Dagland (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) owned by it.

B. On May 24, 2015, E, a spouse of C, driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle on May 24, 2015, and stopped from the intersection of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Doro 43-lane 21 to the intersection of the Gangseonam Hospital Hospital, and the right-hand turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn, and the front part of the Defendant’s Furbane, which is the front right-hand turn turn of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, is collisioned with the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, while the left turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

As a result of the instant accident, the Defendant suffered injuries, such as reflaging alley, ductal alley, cerebrovascular blood, and ladrhea, etc.

On July 8, 2015 after the instant accident, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,00,00 to the Defendant with the provisional payment. The Plaintiff paid KRW 69,87,670,00 in total with the Plaintiff’s medical expenses, as the Plaintiff’s medical expenses, KRW 15,701,440 on September 16, 2015, KRW 15,70 on September 9, 2015, KRW 15,70 on September 9, 2015, KRW 140 on December 14, 2015, KRW 5,079,480 on December 14, 2015, and KRW 28,057,490 on January 19, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, 8, 9 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the accident of this case occurred due to the defendant's negligence in violation of the signal, and there is no negligence of the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle, so the defendant shall return the total insurance money received from the

3. The instant accident was entirely caused by the Defendant’s negligence, as alleged by the Plaintiff, on the sole basis of the records or images of the evidence Nos. 6 and 7, and there is no other evidence to deem the same otherwise. Rather, when adding the purpose of the entire pleadings to the descriptions of evidence Nos. 2 and 9, the instant accident violates the signal.