부당이득금
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings on the statements and images set forth in Gap evidence 1 to 3 and Eul evidence 1 to 3:
The Plaintiff is a mutual aid operator who has entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with A (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to B (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”).
B. On March 26, 2015, around 07:14, an accident occurred where the part behind the Defendant vehicle and the front part of the Plaintiff vehicle are faced with the lower part of the Defendant vehicle on the road located in Ansan-gu C while at Ansan-si.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.
After paying insurance money of KRW 1,018,90 to the Defendant’s vehicle at its repair cost, the Defendant filed a claim for deliberation against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Deliberation Committee”).
On June 20, 2016, the Deliberation Committee rendered a decision to deliberate and coordinate the content of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s fault ratio of the instant accident at 100%. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination, but the Deliberation Committee made a decision on August 8, 2016.
E. On August 31, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,018,90 to the Defendant according to the above decision on August 31, 2016, and filed the instant lawsuit on the same day.
2. The instant accident was caused by the total negligence of the driver of the Defendant vehicle, because the Defendant vehicle alleged by the Plaintiff had intentionally boomed the Plaintiff’s own vehicle in front of the Plaintiff’s own vehicle.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return the money stated in the purport of the claim to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.
3. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the descriptions No. 4-11 of the evidence No. 4-11 and the overall purport of the images and arguments No. 5-1 through No. 4 of the evidence No. 5, (i) the driver of the Defendant vehicle, who delayed the speed before the Plaintiff vehicle, while proceeding with the Plaintiff vehicle.