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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. As to A private taxi (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B automobiles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. At around 09:30 on April 30, 2013, C, driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle, driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the vicinity of the Jambane Lease Apartment at the center of the Seoul Central Bank, Jung-gu, Seoul, and driving it in the vicinity of the main office of the Korean bank, and driving it over at the intersection of an irregular 3-distance intersection where no signal is installed, and then moving back to the bank from the boundary of the Korean bank. At the time, the collision with the Defendant’s vehicle, which was trying to go directly into the above intersection from the boundary of the above Korean bank from the back of the square square at the center of the Korean bank in the direction of the Plaintiff’s driving, and at the time, the Defendant’s vehicle contacted the right wheeler and fences, and the left wheeler and fences

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

At the time of the instant accident, the safety zone was marked in the form of inducing the right-way path on the surface of the road in the above-mentioned 3-distance crossing, but the Defendant’s vehicle was part of the said safety zone and was in the straight-way driving.

After paying KRW 1,862,300 of the repair cost of the Defendant’s vehicle due to the instant accident, the Defendant filed a request for deliberation against the Plaintiff to the Motor Vehicle Insurance Dispute Deliberation Committee (hereinafter “Deliberation Committee”). On November 25, 2013, the Deliberation Committee set the negligence ratio on the part of the Defendant against the Plaintiff on November 25, 2013 as 6: 4.

E. On December 11, 2013, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking the return of unjust enrichment on December 13, 2013, while paying KRW 1,117,380 for reimbursement according to the above decision of deliberation and coordination to the Defendant, but did not consent to the said decision.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence No. 1 (including each number in the case of supplemental evidence), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion by the parties is the instant case.