1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The following facts are found either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with Gap evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 4, taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings:

A. On February 10, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with Nonparty B (hereinafter “the deceased”) with respect to the Plaintiff’s automobile registration number C (hereinafter “the instant automobile”) owned as the deceased, setting the period of insurance as from May 24, 2012 to May 24, 2013 as from May 24, 2012 to May 24, 2013.

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant insurance contract”. The instant insurance contract contains a special agreement on self-vehicle damage insurance with the automobile value of KRW 3,724,00.

B. On February 19, 2013, the Deceased was stolen of the instant vehicle parked in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D around 11:00 on February 10, 2013 to the Plaintiff.

“.........” reported to the effect.

C. The Deceased died on September 9, 2013, and the Defendant solely inherited the deceased.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s deceased will receive a honorarium of five million won, and by lending his name to a third party at the time of the registration of the instant vehicle to a third party, it was offered as a so-called substitute vehicle. Therefore, it was not actually purchased or occupied.

Therefore, the deceased did not have any insurable interest in the insurance contract of this case due to the lack of operational control and operational profit as to the motor vehicle of this case, and cannot be deemed as the named insured, and even if there was an intent to conclude the insurance contract at the time of conclusion, the insurance contract of this case is null and void (main assertion), and as long as the deceased did not occupy the motor vehicle of this case from the beginning, it cannot be deemed as

(Preliminary Claim) Nevertheless, since the deceased claimed insurance money based on the insurance contract of this case, it is confirmed that there is no plaintiff's obligation to pay insurance money against the defendant as his heir.