1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a mutual aid agreement with the Plaintiff for C vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer that entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On November 17, 2018, at around 11:15, the Defendant vehicle entered the fourth lane of the main line at the point where the combined section of the distribution ICT near the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government distribution ICT is finished, and the front section of the Plaintiff vehicle, which was left the fourth lane on the left side of the Defendant vehicle, was shocked by the front section of the right side of the Plaintiff vehicle, which was left the fourth lane on the left side of

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

The Defendant paid 4,758,000 won in total with the insurance money due to the repair cost of the Defendant’s vehicle, etc., and filed an application for deliberation and coordination of the instant accident with the Plaintiff at the Deliberation Committee on Compensation Money Dispute (hereinafter “Deliberation Committee”).

On June 3, 2019, the Deliberation Committee decided on June 3, 2019 that the ratio of responsibility between the plaintiff's vehicle and the defendant's vehicle shall be 30% large.

On June 18, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,427,400 to the Defendant according to the decision of the Deliberation Committee, and filed the instant lawsuit on June 19, 2019, which is within the objection period.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, and 7, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case occurred due to the unilateral negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle, and that the defendant should return the 1,427,400 won paid by the plaintiff as unjust enrichment and damages for delay.

The circumstances revealed by the entire purport of evidence and arguments mentioned above, that is, the roads where the defendant vehicle is running along the main line, are the roads which are set up in combination with the main line. When intending to enter the main road from the combined road to the main line, it is necessary to enter the road after carefully examining whether there are other vehicles that are going on the road to temporarily stop or reduce the speed, and the defendant vehicle is at the place where the combined road is terminated.