1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff's counterclaim brought at the trial.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. As to A and B vehicles owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to C vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

B. Around 13:00 on March 16, 2014, the Defendant’s vehicle had an accident of shocking the front part of the Plaintiff’s right side side of the Defendant’s vehicle, where the U.S. driver attempted to make a sudden internship at a place where the U.S. is prohibited, while driving the two-lane of the two-lane of the two-lane road as a green-ro 13:60, the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle’s left side of the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle.

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

From July 4, 2014 to October 2, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,210,000 for the automobile repair cost after deducting KRW 500,000 for self-paid expenses.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 12, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant accident occurred due to the negligence of the Defendant’s driver who attempted to make an internship in an abnormal manner, and that the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the insurance proceeds to the Plaintiff who acquired the insurer’s subrogation right under Article 682 of the Commercial Act, with the insurance proceeds paid to the Plaintiff with the insurance proceeds paid to the Plaintiff as the claim for reimbursement.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts and the evidence, namely, ① the Plaintiff’s vehicle was normally driven along one lane at the time of the instant accident, but the Defendant’s vehicle driven along the two lanes next to the instant accident attempted to make an illegal internship in one way from the two lanes to the first one, and ② as a driver of the vehicle, it is common to believe that the Plaintiff’s vehicle is also driving along the next vehicle while maintaining its normal lane, barring any special circumstances. Thus, the Defendant’s vehicle is the U.S. driver.