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 concluded an automobile insurance contract with a non-rinked A vehicle owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to B (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On September 24, 2014, at around 18:44, Nonparty C, while driving a vehicle on the Plaintiff’s side, found a D having walked along the crosswalk while driving one lane among two lanes, and shocked D with the right side of the vehicle, and there was an accident in which Nonparty C, who driven a vehicle on the Plaintiff’s side, followed the vehicle on the front side of the Defendant, re-sprinked D with the front side of the vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant traffic accident”). C.

Due to the instant traffic accident, D suffered from the injury of blood transfusions, etc. due to the absence of two or more open wounds, and after having received the dogbal and the scam removal surgery, D shows interference with the behavior adjustment according to the presumed mental symptoms of an island.

As the insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the Plaintiff paid KRW 65,106,190 for D’s medical expenses until January 25, 2016.

E. On April 22, 2016, the Defendant, as the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, paid KRW 30,000,000, which was part of the above medical expenses, to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap, 9, 10 evidence, the whole purport of the pleading

2. The instant traffic accident, which caused the Plaintiff’s claim, was caused exclusively by the Defendant’s violation of the duty of front-time watching by the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle and the duty of ensuring safe distance. Since the Plaintiff fully extinguished the damage claim of D by paying the victim D medical expenses of KRW 65,106,190, the insurer’s subrogation based on Article 682 of the Commercial Act is liable to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 35,106,190 calculated by subtracting the Defendant’s already paid KRW 30,000 from the amount of KRW 65,106,190.

3. Determination

A. To recognize subrogation by an insurer against a third party of an insurer as stipulated in Article 682(1) of the Commercial Act, the relevant legal doctrine.