1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with C and D (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) containing an accident insurance guarantee agreement with respect to the Plaintiff, and is an insurer entrusted with the business of guaranteeing motor vehicle accident compensation under Article 30 of the former Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (amended by Act No. 12987, Jan. 6, 2015; hereinafter “former Act”). The Defendant is the insurer entrusted with the business of guaranteeing motor vehicle accident compensation under Article 30 of the former Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.

A person registered as the owner of a vehicle E (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant vehicle") at the time of an accident described in the port.

B. On November 11, 2013, around 18:20 on November 11, 2013, B driven the Defendant’s vehicle, and driven the Plaintiff’s rear the Plaintiff’s vehicle, who was temporarily stopped as the body of the vehicle in front of the vehicle while driving the Defendant vehicle at the front of the front of the city of Seongbuk-gu, the three lanes in the inside circulation near the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, along the three lanes.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

At the time of the instant accident, automobile insurance was not concluded with respect to the Defendant vehicle, and the Plaintiff was the victim C of the instant accident on June 10, 2014.

The insurance money of KRW 877,600 was paid for medical expenses, etc. in accordance with the non-insurance injury security agreement in the port, and the insurance money of KRW 2,400,000 was paid as a trustee of the government's business of guaranteeing motor vehicle accident compensation on June 11, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the defendant registered as the owner of the defendant vehicle, barring special circumstances, bears liability for damages with the driver of the accident of this case caused by the operation of the defendant vehicle pursuant to Article 3 of the former Act, and thus, the defendant is jointly obligated to pay the plaintiff who subrogated C with the above insurance money to pay the same amount of the above insurance money.

As to this, the defendant, prior to the accident of this case, on March 2013.