1. The Defendant’s KRW 11,415,00 for the Plaintiff and the following: 5% per annum from November 13, 2018 to June 19, 2019.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurance company that has entered into an automobile insurance contract with C vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurance company that entered into an automobile insurance contract with D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On October 23, 2018, at a point of 78.4km in Seoul Yangyang Expressway, the Defendant was driving along a two-lane road at a point of 78.4km in Seoul direction, and the two-lanes of the said road; the vehicle changed to a two-lane and rapid decline in speed; and the rear part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle entering the side to the side of the road conflict with the front part of the Defendant’s right side.

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

The Plaintiff’s vehicle was fully damaged due to the instant accident, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 38,050,000 to E, the insured, based on a special contract for securing self-vehicle damage.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3 through 6, Eul 1 and 2 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s instant accident occurred due to the Plaintiff’s negligence on the part of the Defendant’s driver, as it was found that the Defendant’s driver, who was subsequently driven, was considerably negligent in performing the duty of the front-way driver, and did so without complying with the operation measures. As such, the Plaintiff’s accident occurred due to the previous fault of the Defendant’s driver.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the full amount of the insurance money paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff as indemnity.

B. The Plaintiff’s vehicle changed from the two lanes to the one-lane and stopped in the future of the Defendant’s vehicle, thereby conflicting with the Defendant’s vehicle. The instant accident occurred not by simple post-ruption but by the overall negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement cannot be complied with.

3. Determination

A. According to the facts found above and each of the above evidence, the Plaintiff’s vehicle.