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. Facts constituting the premise of the dispute

A. On January 12, 2017, around 18:35, the driver of the Defendant’s insured vehicle (C; hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”) in front of the convenience store in the Cheongju-si, a considerable area of Cheongju-si, left two lanes, and found the victim late later (hereinafter “victim”). The driver of the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle (E; hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”) changed the vehicle line to avoid a collision with the Defendant’s vehicle and used as the first accident (hereinafter “the second accident”). B.

The defendant filed a claim with the committee for deliberation on the disputes over indemnity amount under the mutual agreement on the deliberation of disputes over indemnity amount.

The Committee set the ratio of responsibility of the plaintiff vehicle to 30% and the ratio of responsibility of the defendant vehicle to 70%.

On May 15, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 21,000,000 to the Defendant (70,000,000 insurance money paid by the Defendant x 30%).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s alleged vehicle had no choice but to change the vehicle line in order to avoid collision with the Defendant’s vehicle. It is impossible for the driver to detect and avoid the victim who is on the road when driving a road without street lights at night. As such, there is no fault of the Plaintiff’s driver at the time of the second accident.

In addition, it is unclear whether the victim was alive at the time of the second accident, and it is not clearly revealed whether the cause of the second accident and the second accident resulted in death. Therefore, there is no causal relationship between the second accident and the death of the victim.

Therefore, the defendant should return 21,00,000 won paid by the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

3. Determination

A. First, we examine whether the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was negligent.

The above evidence and the whole pleadings.