1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4, and Eul evidence No. 1 (including each number), together with the purport of the whole pleadings:

The Plaintiff entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with the Defendant as indicated in the attached Form 2.

B. On March 8, 2013, at around 20:30, the Defendant’s Party B driven a C E-coos car (hereinafter “instant car”) and caused a traffic accident as indicated in attached Form 1, such as the details of the traffic accident. As a result, the Defendant suffered injury to E and F as the driver of the D-E vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant traffic accident”). C.

With regard to the payment of insurance money Class II, the term of the insurance contract of this case provides that "the insured person himself/herself has been driving without a license or has been driving without a license under the explicit or implied approval of the insured person shall not be compensated for any damage caused by an accident that occurred when the driver of the insured motor vehicle has been driving without a license."

(hereinafter “instant Exclusion Clause”). 2. The parties’ assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the traffic accident of this case occurred while driving B without a license under the defendant's explicit implied approval. Thus, the plaintiff is exempted from the obligation to pay the insurance money of the Grand Compensation II in relation to the traffic accident of this case in accordance with the exemption clause of this case.

B. The Defendant alleged that the instant vehicle accident was caused by the discovery of the key to the instant vehicle, which was hidden between the chemical powder at the entrance of the entrance of the entrance of the entrance of the entrance of the entrance of the entrance of the entrance, and the Defendant, his father, was driving the instant vehicle, and did not explicitly approve B’s unlicensed driving.

3.In the judgment of automobile insurance, the driver of the insured motor vehicle has been operating without permission under the express or implied approval of the insured.