A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with the Plaintiff’s private taxi owned by E (hereinafter “Plaintiff taxi”), and the Defendant is a driver of G-based taxi (hereinafter “Defendant taxi”).

B. On November 16, 2015, E: (a) around 11:00 on November 16, 2015, in the vicinity of the shooting distance of the Gangnam-dong Hospital in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, the Plaintiff taxi was driven by the Defendant taxi and then went to the third-lane from the station to the station, and then entered the third-lane as it was in conflict with the Defendant taxi of the Defendant, who was directly driving along the three-lanes of the ebbbbbbs in the vicinity of the shooting distance of the hospital in the city in the city in the city in the city in the city in the

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

After the instant accident, the Defendant received hospital treatment from the I Hospital located in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City for 13 days from November 16, 2015 to the 28th day of the same month, and thereafter received hospital treatment at J Hospital, K Hospital, Korea Medical Center, etc.

From the accident of this case to September 19, 2016, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant totaling KRW 7,359,030 as medical expenses.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 7, Gap evidence 12, Eul evidence 1 and 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on each of the principal claims and counterclaims and claims

A. 1) The Plaintiff asserts that ① as its primary assertion, the Defendant, despite sufficiently showing the entry status of Plaintiff taxi, caused an accident intentionally by shocking Plaintiff taxi, and thus, the Defendant is not liable for damages incurred to the Defendant due to the instant accident, and KRW 7,359,030 paid to the Defendant should be returned to the Defendant as unjust enrichment, and ② as its preliminary assertion, the Defendant asserts that even if the Plaintiff’s negligence on the instant accident against Plaintiff taxi driver, the Defendant’s negligence is more than 90%. 2) As to the instant accident, the Defendant asserted that the instant accident is satisf and tension.