The part against the plaintiff falling under the amount ordered to be paid under the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

2. The defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The circumstances surrounding the instant accident are as follows.

On September 4, 2018, at the time of the accident, the insured vehicle C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) of the Defendant Insured Vehicle C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) of the Plaintiff Insured Vehicle D (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”) and around September 08:2, 2018 at the time of the accident, the Defendant vehicle waiting to turn on the left-hand direction, etc. at the fourth-lanes of the street collision situation in front of the department store in Sung-gu, Changwon-gu, Busan Special Metropolitan City, Busan, the fourth-lanes of the street collision situation in front of the department store, and the Defendant vehicle attempted to turn on the third-lanes, and the Plaintiff vehicle, which moved on the third-lanes of the Plaintiff vehicle,

B. The Defendant determined and paid KRW 707,780 adjacent to KRW 709,90,000, which was the sum of KRW 49,500,000 for the repair cost of the Defendant’s vehicle and the attorney’s fees of KRW 1,150,40,000, as insurance money, and filed a request for deliberation with the FSC by asserting that there was a negligence on the Plaintiff’s driver in relation to the instant accident.

The FF Committee decided on January 28, 2019 that the negligence of the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was 30%, and the Plaintiff calculated and paid the amount of indemnity to the Defendant as KRW 492,120 on February 14, 2019.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 through 8, Eul evidence or video evidence 2 to 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff asserts that there was no negligence on the Plaintiff’s driver on the instant accident, and sought a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the amount of indemnity paid to the Defendant.

However, according to the evidence mentioned above, the accident of this case occurred because the defendant vehicle which was waiting in the atmosphere is trying to combine with three lanes in a combined lane. However, the driver of the plaintiff vehicle is negligent in failing to take safety driving measures, such as speeding, despite the fact that the driver of the plaintiff vehicle was aware of the fact that the defendant vehicle waiting to turn on the left-hand direction, and the driver of the plaintiff vehicle want to combine with three lanes.

Ultimately, the instant accident conflicts with the negligence of the original Defendant driver.