A. The Plaintiff is an insurance company that entered into an automobile insurance contract with the owner of the Plaintiff’s vehicle A (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”). The Defendant is a party to a mutual aid contract for the vehicle B owned by the Dowon Transport (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On November 6, 2009, around 07:10 on November 6, 2009, the Plaintiff’s vehicle reported a hurf white vehicle in excess of the central line on the road in front of the Changnam-dong, Jongno-gu, Seoul, on the road in front of the Changnam-gu, Jongno-gu, Seoul, on the road in front of the Changnam-do, and the Defendant’s vehicle following the Plaintiff’s vehicle caused an accident of shocking the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”).

C. On May 17, 2010, the Plaintiff paid 7,820,000 won to the owner of the Plaintiff’s vehicle as insurance money, and thereafter, the Defendant filed a claim with the Defendant for reimbursement against physical damage caused by the instant traffic accident with the Defendant to the Automobile Insurance Dispute Deliberation Committee.

Accordingly, on July 26, 2010, the open Deliberation Committee rendered a decision to deliberate on and coordinate the Defendant vehicle’s liability ratio of 100% on the ground that the Defendant vehicle’s vehicle was “a post-explosive accident”.

Accordingly, on August 9, 2010, the Defendant paid 7,820,000 won to the Plaintiff according to the above deliberation and coordination decision. D.

After all, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming return of unjust enrichment against the Plaintiff to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 3,128,000 won and the amount calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from August 10, 2010 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint, and 20% per annum from the next day to the full payment date,” claiming that the Plaintiff’s negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was 40% with respect to the instant traffic accident.”

Accordingly, on August 27, 2010, the court rendered a decision of performance recommendation with the same content as the above purport of the claim, and on September 1, 2010, the decision became final and conclusive on September 16, 2010 on the ground that the Plaintiff was served with the notice of performance recommendation and did not raise any objection thereto.

[Ground of recognition] dispute.