1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff concluded a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with B (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”) in relation to the New Liberscar Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “New Liberscar”) with the mutual aid association whose members are sirens car operators under the Passenger Transport Service Act.

B. On May 12, 2016, when a person under whose name the instant vehicle was leased from New Zealand, requested the Defendant to drive the instant vehicle on behalf of the Defendant, the Defendant: (a) driven the instant vehicle and entered the private-distance intersection located in Seo-gu, Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon, and caused the driver of the victimized vehicle D and the winners E to sustain the injury while entering the said intersection (hereinafter referred to as “victim”) and driving the instant vehicle on behalf of the Defendant around 22:50.

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

The case non-life insurance (hereinafter referred to as the "case non-life insurance") concluded with the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant (as for the part exceeding the liability insurance amount under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act) is the injury-related materials, suspension of business, direct non-payment, and future treatment costs for the following reasons: (a) the ratio of the negligence of the instant vehicle and the damaged vehicle is calculated by 80%:20%; and (b) D and E under the pretext of agreement.

After paying KRW 931,270 and KRW 905,980, respectively, the Plaintiff exercised the right of reimbursement to the Plaintiff within the scope of the liability insurance amount. On November 18, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,837,250 (=931,270, KRW 905,980) to the case non-life insurance.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Even if the plaintiff alleged that the defendant driven the instant vehicle with the permission of the tenant who is the consenting insured, this is obviously contrary to the will of the registered insured New Zealand, which is the registered insured.