부당이득금
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with C with respect to DDama Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with E with respect to Fbusch Rexroth (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
B. At around 18:10 on October 16, 2016, G driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and changed the direction, etc. from two lanes to one lane without turning on the direction, etc. immediately after the moving of the first three distance near H in Kim Jong-si’s Kim Jong-si from the left part of the Kim Jong-si fire station. While J driving the said three distance from K Otoba, while driving the said three distance to the lower part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, while driving the said three distance to the lower part of the discharge on the left part of the Kim fire station, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was over the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “the first accident”), the Defendant’s vehicle driving L conflicts with J going beyond the road going into one-lane following the Ortoba, and thus the death of J.
(hereinafter referred to as "the second accident") and the second accident, including the first accident and the second accident, shall be referred to as "the instant accident").
As an insurer of Defendant vehicle, the Defendant paid 80,345,110 won to the deceased J's bereaved family as insurance money.
On March 30, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 16,00,000 to the Defendant with the amount of indemnity on March 30, 2017 upon the Defendant’s request. The Dispute Mediation Deliberation Committee recognized the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle as 40% on October 22, 2018 and determined the amount of indemnity of the Plaintiff as 32,138,044 won on November 7, 2018, the Plaintiff paid the remainder of indemnity amount of KRW 16,138,04 to the Defendant on November 7, 2018, but only the amount the Defendant claimed was paid.
A. The payment was made.
E. On the other hand, on May 19, 2017, the prosecutor acknowledged the fact that G did not discover an ozone part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle G and changed the lane without using direction direction, etc. on the part of the Plaintiff’s driver G and immediately thereafter, while recognizing the fact that it exceeded the ozone part, given the characteristics of the ozone part, it is impossible to see the surface.