부당이득금
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 1,252,50 as well as to the plaintiff on July 14, 2017.
1. Basic facts
A. With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
B. On January 23, 2017, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven along the side of a part near the D cafeteria located in Kimpo-si C. On the other hand, the Defendant’s vehicle stopped at the right edge of the lane while lowering the string speed on the opposite side. However, the Defendant’s vehicle stopped at the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time when the strings with the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the front wheels the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle with the front side.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.
After paying insurance money of KRW 2,506,250 at the repair cost of the defendant vehicle, the defendant filed a claim for the deliberation of the claim against the plaintiff.
On June 12, 2017, the committee for deliberation on car insurance disputes decided that the ratio of negligence between the plaintiff's vehicle and the defendant's vehicle should be 50%:50% and that the plaintiff should pay KRW 1,253,125 corresponding to the ratio of negligence between the plaintiff's vehicle and the defendant's vehicle (hereinafter "the decision of this case").
On June 28, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,252,50 to the Defendant according to the instant decision, and filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant on June 29, 2017, which was before the closing date of the instant decision.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 8, images, the purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The following circumstances revealed that the ratio of liability of the instant accident was recognized and the entire purport of the pleadings was displayed in the evidence revealed earlier, i.e., ① the lane that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driven by the Plaintiff’s vehicle as a motor vehicle slope in the opposite direction, and the vehicle was driven at the right edge of the lane by reducing the speed of the Defendant’s vehicle at the opposite direction and driving at the right edge of the lane, and the vehicle was completely front