1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 22,600,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from May 28, 2013 to July 19, 2013; and (b).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 31, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a personal automobile insurance contract with the insured for B automobiles owned by A (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) between A and A with respect to the insurance period from May 31, 2012 to May 31, 2013, and entered into a special agreement on “limited driving at least 43 years of age, limited driving, and limited driving by both spouses.”

(hereinafter “instant insurance contract”). (b)

A and C were married, and they were divorced on November 14, 2012 during the insurance contract period of this case.

C. Under the special terms and conditions of personal automobile insurance, the term “non-exclusive driving special terms and conditions” provides that “an insurance company shall not pay insurance proceeds for an accident occurred while a registered insured person and a person other than his/her spouse are driving an insured motor vehicle,” and the term “spouse of a registered insured person” refers to “a spouse under the law of the registered insured person or a de facto spouse in a de facto marital relationship.”

C around 01:40 on December 19, 2012, around 01:0, while driving and driving the instant vehicle in the vicinity of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan D Building, C concealed the F vehicle owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “victim”) driven by E while driving the instant vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”) e.

The Plaintiff paid KRW 11,680,000 for the repair cost of the instant damaged vehicle due to the instant accident on February 20, 2013, and KRW 10,920,000 for the instant damaged vehicle on May 27, 2013, respectively, in accordance with the agreement for physical damage compensation of the instant insurance contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 and 8, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a) In a case where an insurer did not know that there was no obligation to pay the insurance proceeds because the insurer fell under the provisions on exemption under the insurance terms and conditions of the insurance contract, the insurer may seek the return of the insurance proceeds to the victim;

Therefore, the above facts are examined (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da3632, Mar. 3, 1995).