1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff, upon paying the insurance money to the victims of the insured vehicle, sought reimbursement against the Defendant, the owner of the vehicle shocking the vehicle (the instant vehicle).

The Defendant asserted that the instant vehicle is not liable for the lack of operational control or operating profit.

2. Basic facts

A. B, while driving the instant vehicle registered as owned by the Defendant, around 15:56, August 11, 2013, 2015: (a) 15:56, the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle, at the first-lane of the 648 Northwest-dong, Jung-gu, Seoul, Seoul.

(The accident of this case). (b)

The Plaintiff finally paid KRW 20,263,390 to the victims due to the Plaintiff’s vehicle repair cost, personal injury, etc.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

3. The allegations by the parties and the judgment thereof

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case occurred due to the failure to secure a safe distance, which is one of the negligence of the vehicle in this case, and claim for the amount of the insurance money paid by the plaintiff against the defendant who is the owner.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the vehicle of this case was registered as the defendant only in the name of the defendant, and that since the vehicle of this case was already sold and provided related documents to B, it is not responsible for the lack of operational control or operational profit.

B. Determination 1) In light of the following facts acknowledged in light of the absence of dispute between the parties or the overall purport of each entry in the evidence Nos. 1 through 8 and the entire pleadings, even if the ownership of the instant vehicle remains, the Defendant was discharged from the position of exercising a management control over the instant vehicle or obtaining a operational profit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da41866, Apr. 14, 192). (1) The Defendant, as an operator of the “D Motor Vehicle Sales Company”, requested F to arrange the sale of the instant vehicle.

(2) The F shall sell the instant motor vehicle to B.