1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with B (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On July 12, 2016, around 18:00, there was an accident where the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was left left at a two-lane distance from the street as of the Han River field of Daejeon Seo-gu, Daejeon, U.S., left-hand, shocked the Defendant’s vehicle at the left-hand at one lane (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On August 30, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 745,700 calculated by deducting KRW 186,000 from the Plaintiff’s automobile repair cost of KRW 931,70,000 as the Plaintiff’s automobile repair cost for the instant accident, and paid KRW 73,900 (70% of the 1,048,430,000) with the substitute insurance money on January 26, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 8, Eul evidence 1 to 5, video (including paper numbers) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The summary of this safety defense is that the Defendant, with respect to the instant accident, established 14 days after the date the deliberation and decision of the Deliberation Committee by December 19, 2016 was served with the notice of the decision of the Deliberation Committee, and the settlement contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the percentage of the fault of the original Defendant vehicle was concluded. As such, the instant lawsuit is an unlawful defense against the violation of the mutual agreement on the deliberation of the dispute over the reimbursement of automobile insurance (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

B. In the case where there are different opinions on the validity or scope of the agreement, the agreement to bring a lawsuit is deemed to have generated significant legal effects, such as waiver of the right to claim a trial guaranteed under the Constitution to the parties to the lawsuit, and is valid as to the circumstances that can be anticipated at the time of the agreement. In the case where there are different opinions on the validity or scope

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da80449, Nov. 28, 2013). As to the instant case, the Health Unit, 1.