1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 24, 2014, at around 12:50 on December 24, 2014, the Plaintiff was driving a B amba (hereinafter “the instant amba”) on the surface of the amba (hereinafter “the instant amba”), along the three-lanes around the bus stops located adjacent to the Ulsan-gu Sacheon-gu Sacheon-gu Sambam (hereinafter “the instant amba”), along the one-lanes of the three-lanes around the bus stops located adjacent to the bus stops located adjacent to the Ulsan-gu Sambam (hereinafter “instant amba”), and then, the Plaintiff was found to have immediately

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

Due to the accident of this case, C suffered from injury, such as the dub government's external levirosisal levirosis on the left side.

C. The Defendant is an insurer of the comprehensive automobile insurance contract that entered into with D, the spouse of C, and the Defendant paid KRW 11,848,640 for medical expenses up to March 8, 2017 in accordance with the instant accident insurance contract, as the Defendant subscribed only to the liability insurance contract, and was paid KRW 11,848,640 for the insurance expenses up to March 8, 2017. The Defendant was paid KRW 2.4 million for the insurance proceeds up to June 30, 2015 from the Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., the liability insurance company of the instant Otoba, and KRW 2.4 million from the Plaintiff on September 23, 20

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant’s main defense against the Defendant asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff is the victim of the instant accident, and the claimant for damages also did not waive the Plaintiff’s claim for damages, thus seeking confirmation of the absence of an obligation against the Defendant, which is not C, cannot be an effective and appropriate means to resolve the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status’s uncertainty or danger, and thus, there is no benefit in confirmation against the Defendant.

However, as long as the defendant continues to pay the insurance money to C based on the non-insurance coverage agreement, and in this regard, the plaintiff's right to claim reimbursement against the plaintiff.