Therefore, this court's reasoning is 3-B of the judgment of the first instance.

Except for the cases where paragraphs 1 and 4. (Nos. 5, 19, 6, and 7) are used as follows, the grounds of the judgment of the first instance are the same as those of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

【Supplementary Use】

B. Although there is no proximate causal relation between the negligence of the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle and the death of the victim, the Defendant, the insurer of the Defendant vehicle, has paid the insurance proceeds of KRW 47,306,480 due to the instant accident. As such, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay to the Defendant unjust enrichment the amount of KRW 47,306,480 and delay damages calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from July 18, 2019 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of the copy of the instant counterclaim.

In addition, the Defendant claimed damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from November 30, 2019 to the delivery date of a duplicate of the counterclaim of this case from November 30, 2019, which is the day following the day when the final insurance money was paid as the above insurance money. However, the above obligation to return unjust enrichment is an obligation with no fixed period during which the obligor is liable for delay only when the obligor is requested for performance. Thus, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant filed a claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the above insurance money against the Plaintiff before the delivery

Therefore, the defendant's argument about the exceeding the above scope of recognition is without merit.

4. In conclusion, the plaintiff's main claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the defendant's counterclaim is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining counterclaim is claimed.