부당이득금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with respect to (ju) New Zealands events and A Jeonse Buses (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance agreement with respect to B rocketing motor vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).
B. On August 20, 2013, around July 7:38, 2013, the Plaintiff’s vehicle collisioned with the Defendant’s vehicle that changed the vehicle from three lanes to one lane while driving on the road in front of the orchard Terminal in Suwon-si, Suwon-si (hereinafter “instant accident”).
C. Due to the instant accident, the repair cost of KRW 7,861,260 was incurred on the Defendant’s vehicle. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was negligent in the Plaintiff’s vehicle in relation to the instant accident and filed a petition for deliberation with the Dispute Resolution Committee. On April 7, 2014, the said Committee decided that the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was 20% (hereinafter “instant decision”). On April 21, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,472,250 to the Defendant on April 21, 2014.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry and video (including the number of pages) of Gap’s 1, 3 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The decision of this case is unfair since the plaintiff's vehicle's negligence with respect to the accident of this case is not the fault of the plaintiff.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return to the plaintiff 1,472,250 won and damages for delay made by the plaintiff as unjust enrichment among the 1,472,250 won paid by the plaintiff.
B. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged as a comprehensive consideration of the overall purport of the pleadings at the video of Gap evidence No. 1, namely, the defendant vehicle attempted to rapidly change the vehicle from three lanes to one lane, and therefore, the plaintiff vehicle seems to have been unable to properly prepare for the change of the vehicle of the defendant vehicle with prior knowledge of the change of the vehicle of the vehicle of the defendant vehicle.