1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On February 3, 2019, while the Plaintiff’s vehicle was left left at the shooting distance of the E-House Underground Parking Lot at the Government-Si, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was found and stopped rapidly from the Defendant’s vehicle that is right behind the left on the left side of the Plaintiff vehicle.

The defendant's vehicle found the plaintiff's vehicle that attempted to turn to the left and did not stop the vehicle while lowering the speed and shock the plaintiff's vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On June 5, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,620,000 as insurance money after deducting KRW 404,000 from the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence No. 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The gist of the defense is that the plaintiff and the defendant are obligated to transfer the right to request deliberation to the "Mutual Agreement on the Deliberation of Motor Vehicle Insurance Claim Dispute" (hereinafter referred to as the "Separate Judgment Agreement"), which is the party to the agreement, and that the lawsuit in this case is unlawful, since the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case without going through dispute settlement procedures.

B. The fact that the Plaintiff’s direct payment of the Plaintiff’s automobile repair costs is recognized as having not gone through the dispute settlement procedures. However, Article 18 of the Divided Agreement provides that the parties to an agreement impose an obligation to transfer on the Plaintiff, but does not explicitly state the validity of the filing of a lawsuit in the event of a violation, and rather provides measures to ensure the performance of the obligation to transfer on the Plaintiff in the event of a breach of the obligation under Article 30.