1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On July 21, 1998, at around 23:00, the defendant driving a road in front of the Seongdong-gu, Youngdong-gu, Youngdong-gu, Youngdong-gu, Youngdong-dong, which did not subscribe to liability insurance, and neglecting the duty of Jeonju to the front left side of the front side of the front side and caused death of the front side of the front side of the front side without discovering B, who was negligent in performing the duty of the front side duty at the point of accident, while driving the road in front of the Seongbuk-gu, Youngdong-gu, Youngdong-gu, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-gu

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”). B.

In accordance with Article 30(6) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, the Plaintiff, as an agent to handle the business of guaranteeing automobile accident compensation upon entrustment of authority from the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, who is a business operator guaranteeing automobile accident compensation, paid KRW 60 million to the heir of B in relation to the instant accident.

C. Around 2001, the Plaintiff filed an application for a payment order against the Defendant (this court 2001 tea5094) seeking the reimbursement of the above insurance money, and received a payment order order order order from this court '60 million won on July 19, 2001 and delayed payment damages' (hereinafter "the instant payment order"). The instant payment order was finalized on August 7, 2001.

[Evidence] Facts without a partial dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, witness C's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the allegations and the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to claim the insurance money paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff unless there are special circumstances.

I would like to say.

As to this, the defendant raised a defense of the extinctive prescription, the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case on August 29, 201, which is obvious that the ten-year extinctive prescription period has expired from August 7, 2001, when the payment order of this case became final and conclusive. As such, the plaintiff's claim for indemnity was completed the extinctive prescription.

Therefore, the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is justified.

On February 14, 2005, the Plaintiff as part of the Defendant’s liability for indemnity to the Plaintiff on February 14, 2005.