1. The plaintiff's respective claims against the defendants are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. Status 1) The Plaintiff is a party to the dispute. The Plaintiff is a party to the dispute with E and FNAS vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”).

(2) Defendant B Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Construction Co., Ltd”) is an insurer which has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the following:

B. (1) A vehicle with an electronic sign board attached to a company that takes charge of the instant construction, and a vehicle that leads to change of course in order to inform the following vehicles of the fact that the instant construction is being carried out on the Gwalk Road (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

3) Defendant D Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant D Co., Ltd”) is an insurer which has entered into an automobile insurance contract with the Defendant vehicle.

B. The instant accident occurred and the payment of insurance proceeds is 1) The Defendant’s vehicle is a single-lane road (hereinafter “instant road”) on March 29, 2017, where the Defendant’s vehicle was at the store located in the mid-to-west Highway in the middle-to-west Highway (hereinafter “instant road”) and was at the 36km point in the middle-to-west Highway.

(1) In the case of this case, the Corporation shall be deemed to be a replacement of the Central Separation Zone (hereinafter referred to as “instant Corporation”).

2) On March 29, 2017, the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped to drive the instant road on or around 13:10 on March 29, 2017 (hereinafter “instant accident”). As a result, the Plaintiff’s driver suffered from injury and damaged the Plaintiff’s vehicle E, etc.

3) On May 26, 2017 to November 23, 2011, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 75,125,110 in total, and KRW 34,740,00 in the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle on June 19, 2017, and KRW 109,865,110 in total (i.e., KRW 75,125,110 in total).

On April 29, 2019, the Sub-Deliberation Committee decided the ratio of liability to the plaintiff's 90% and the defendant's 10%, and the Re-Deliberation Committee also decided the same content as July 1, 2019.

2. The defendant insurance company is dissatisfied with this and paid to the plaintiff according to the above decision.