2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with A driver B (hereinafter “Plaintiff”). The Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with C driver D (hereinafter “Defendant”) with respect to a small-sized D motor vehicle quantity.

B. On November 13, 2015, around 00:40, around the second line of the FJ in front of the second line in the Southernnam-gun E, the Plaintiff was shocked to the left-hand side of the front side of the Defendant vehicle to load on the right-hand side of the Plaintiff vehicle, and secondly, the Defendant vehicle turned back to the front side of the road, and the Plaintiff vehicle was charged with the third vehicle standing on the side of the road, and the Plaintiff vehicle was placed on the right-hand side of the road.

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

By January 24, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,628,940 to the injured party G who was injured as a partner of the Plaintiff’s vehicle by the instant accident.

On November 14, 2016, and January 9, 2017, the committee for deliberation and review of the committee for deliberation on indemnity and the committee for review of indemnity amount determined the negligence ratio of the instant accident between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle as 7:3, respectively, and the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit in objection thereto.

【Ground of recognition】 Evidence Nos. 1, 4 through 7, Eul Evidence No. 1 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred when the driver of the Defendant vehicle drives the vehicle at night in excess of the limit of the limit of driving at night, due to the negligence of the Defendant vehicle, and thus, the decision of the committee for deliberation on the disputes over indemnity is unreasonable.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the insurance proceeds paid to the Plaintiff G, KRW 1,628,940, as well as damages for delay.

3. According to the statements in Gap evidence 2 and Eul evidence 6-6, the driver of the defendant vehicle at the time of the accident in this case was the state of 0.234% of blood alcohol concentration.