1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 9, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a comprehensive insurance contract for non-insurance motor vehicle injury security with respect to its owned C motor vehicle from the same day as the insurance period of the C motor vehicle from the same day to April 9, 2015.

B. On August 8, 2014, at around 00:23, the Defendant: (a) driven a D body-man car (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”); and (b) caused an accident that caused injury to the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle, i.e., a victim E, who neglected the duty of front-time watch while neglecting the duty of front-time watch on the road traffic signal from the side of the port side of the port side of the port side of North-gu, Daegu to the direction of the road traffic along the direction of the road traffic signals; (c) caused by negligence on the part of the Defendant’s vehicle, while neglecting the duty of front-time watch; and (d) by neglecting the pedestrian traffic on the left side of the back of the course of the collision, the Defendant’s undeveloped victim E, who violated the pedestrian signal, caused the injury to the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. E is a child of B who is insured under a non-insurance accident security special agreement, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 37,928,790 in total to E for medical expenses from October 13, 2014 to December 27, 2015 according to the special agreement, and paid KRW 39,80,300 in total by paying KRW 1,951,51,510 on September 5, 2017.

On the other hand, the special terms and conditions of the non-life insurance policy of this case stipulate that when the plaintiff has paid insurance money to the insured as compensation for the damage caused by the non-life insurance, the insured may acquire the right to claim damages against the obligor for compensation and exercise it in subrogation within the limit of the insurance

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, 11, and 12 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the occurrence of damages liability and the recognition of the above limitation, the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence that the defendant neglected the duty of ex officio care, and thus, the defendant did so.