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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicles (hereinafter “instant sea vehicle”), and the Defendant is a car maintenance businessman who has repaired D vehicles owned by C (hereinafter “instant damaged vehicles”).

B. On November 28, 2015, around 16:40, the instant damaged vehicle was destroyed by a traffic accident that occurred due to the driver’s negligence of the instant sea vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”) in the vicinity of the Chungcheongnam-si Training, and C requested repair of the instant damaged vehicle to the EAH, a motor vehicle maintenance business operator operated by the Defendant around that time.

C. On January 20, 2016, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds to the Defendant by paying KRW 6,974,000 for the repair cost of the instant damaged vehicle on behalf of C. The Defendant repaired the instant damaged vehicle and delivered it to C.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant had a duty to return to the Plaintiff, on the ground that it obtained unjust enrichment equivalent to KRW 3,619,00 of the repair cost paid by the Plaintiff by repairing the part irrelevant to the instant accident while repairing the instant damaged vehicle, or by calculating the repair cost excessively.

The Defendant, while repairing the instant damaged vehicle, repaired the parts unrelated to the instant accident only with the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 5.

In a method of calculating the excessive repair cost, it is insufficient to recognize that the amount equivalent to KRW 3,619,00, out of the repair cost of the instant damaged vehicle was paid unfairly, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.