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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. The circumstances surrounding the instant accident are as follows.

At the time of the accident, at around 07:50 on November 8, 2018 at the time of the accident, the Defendant’s vehicle, in the situation of the collision of the 4-lane road adjacent to the off-to-Eup in Yeongdong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, the direction of right direction, etc. from the first lane to the second lane, and attempted to change the course, the unclaimed vehicle driven behind the first lane changed from the latter to the two-lane and passed the Defendant vehicle. Accordingly, the Defendant’s vehicle returned to the first lane and turned to the broom, and proceeds to the second lane, and the collision between the two-lane part of the Plaintiff vehicle’s driver’s seat.

B. The Defendant paid KRW 3,475,00,00, after deducting KRW 705,000 from the value of the remainder of the Defendant’s vehicle from the 4,180,000 won calculated based on the vehicle value as insurance money, and filed an application for deliberation and coordination of the instant accident with the indemnity payment deliberation committee. The indemnity payment deliberation committee decided to deliberate and coordinate the instant accident on February 11, 2019 as 10 (Plaintiff’s vehicle):90 (Defendant’s vehicle).

C. Accordingly, on February 19, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking the return of unjust enrichment by paying the amount equivalent to 10% of the negligence ratio from the amount of KRW 3,300,000, which is the limit of the 3300,000 for the Defendant’s vehicle’s heavy taxation to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff’s driver, was unable to expect or avoid the entry of the Defendant’s vehicle into the two-lanes, and thus, the Plaintiff sought a return of unjust enrichment of the above indemnity that was paid to the Defendant, while the instant accident occurred due to the unilateral negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle. Accordingly, the Defendant is proceeding with the Defendant’s vehicle at the time when it was broom.