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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

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

B. On April 14, 2019, the Defendant’s driver suffered from the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the entrance of the parking lot E in the Suwon-si Suwon-si apartment parking lot around 22:10.

C. The Defendant, as an insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, paid KRW 5,082,00 for the repair cost of the Defendant’s vehicle, filed an application for deliberation with the committee for deliberation on indemnity disputes. On September 30, 2019, the said committee decided that the negligence ratio between the Plaintiff’s driver and the Defendant’s driver was 10:90.

On January 6, 2020, the Plaintiff paid KRW 508,200 to the Defendant according to the decision stated in the preceding paragraph.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to Gap 9 evidence, Eul 1 to Eul 5 evidence (Evidence with a Serial number shall include a Serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(2) each entry, video, and the purport of the entire pleading

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion occurred due to the total negligence of the Defendant’s driver.

Therefore, the defendant should return 508,200 won received from the plaintiff to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of Gap evidence No. 5, Gap evidence No. 6, Eul evidence No. 4, and Eul evidence No. 5 and the overall purport of the pleadings, namely, the defendant's vehicle driver, who was parked at the entrance of the parking lot, went back without any particular measure despite being able to know the existence of the plaintiff's vehicle by the head of the plaintiff's vehicle at the entrance of the parking lot, and the accident of this case occurred. ② The driver of the plaintiff's vehicle, despite the indication and warning that the vehicle was emitted from the parking lot in light, etc. installed at the entrance of the parking lot, even if the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle, stops only after reaching the entrance of the parking lot.