Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal are the judgment of the first instance.

A. As to the Plaintiff’s vehicle C (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to D vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On September 13, 2019, around 15:10 on September 13, 2019, an accident occurred that conflicts between the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle that is circumvented and the left-hand part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s left-hand part (hereinafter “instant accident”).

E Review Committee decided the fault ratio of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s vehicle on the instant accident 70: 30.

According to the above decision, the plaintiff paid 1,924,860 won as the amount of indemnity to the defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's vehicle was moving along along along the passage, and the defendant's vehicle in the latter way attempted to overtake the plaintiff's vehicle and forced the plaintiff's vehicle to give unreasonable treatment. The accident of this case entirely occurred due to the negligence of the defendant vehicle.

The plaintiff paid KRW 1,924,860 to the defendant once according to the decision of the deliberation committee. Since there is no negligence on the plaintiff's vehicle, the defendant must return the above money to the defendant as unjust profit.

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 10, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff's vehicle can be found to conflict with the defendant's vehicle in the right direction of the right side of the road and toward the front wheels in the right direction of the right side of the road.

In addition to the above facts of recognition and the purport of the entire arguments, the accident of this case occurred as the main cause not only because the movement of the defendant vehicle that affected the plaintiff vehicle is not properly taken into account but also because of the fact that the plaintiff vehicle was directly involved in the accident in the process of departing after stopping.