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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract that contains a special agreement to cover injuries caused by an non-life-free vehicle (hereinafter “non-life-free injury”) with respect to the vehicle E (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) as the insured, and C is driving the F Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”) and:

A person who has caused the same accident as the paragraph, and the defendant is the owner of the defendant vehicle.

B. C around 17:00 on July 8, 2017, at the Defendant’s office located in Daegu Northern-gu G, the Defendant’s key was assigned, and C driven the Defendant’s vehicle in front of the office.

C. At around 05:30 on July 9, 2017, C was found to have driven the Defendant vehicle on the Daegu Port Highway located in Cheongcheon-si, Cheongcheon-do, Cheongcheon-do, without obtaining a driver’s license. On the same day, C driven the Defendant vehicle on the road near Gacheon-gun, Gacheon-do, Gacheon-do, at around 13:00, and did not immediately discover the Plaintiff vehicle waiting in front of the Defendant vehicle on the front side of the said road and did not immediately discover the Plaintiff vehicle, and the front part of the Defendant vehicle was shocked (hereinafter “instant accident”).

Plaintiff

D, as a driver of a vehicle, suffered injuries, such as salt, tensions, etc., in need of approximately two weeks of medical treatment due to the instant accident.

E. Until August 25, 2017, the Plaintiff spent KRW 2,441,140 in total with D’s medical expenses and agreed amount in accordance with a non-insurance coverage agreement, and returned KRW 1,60,000 from the liability insurance company of the Defendant vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 (including each number, hereinafter the same)

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion is that the defendant is the owner of the vehicle of this case who operates the automobile for himself under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and therefore, it is against D under the main sentence of Article 682 (1) of the Commercial Act.