1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim (including the part extended from the trial) is dismissed.

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s low-priced car (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s car”).

B. Around 08:40 on August 12, 2014, the Plaintiff’s trade name was driven by driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle, driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle in compliance with one lane among three-lanes of the front end and underground roads located in the area of the PPS located in Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, and the part of the lower part of the Defendant’s CAW car (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”) driven at the front end was shocked with the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On August 12, 2014, the date of the instant accident, the Defendant received the diagnosis of “damage to the extraction,” and “damage to the joints of the shoulder shoulder and the joints of the joints of the joints of the joints of the joints of the joints of the joints of the joints of the joints of the joints of the joints of the joints of the joints of the joints of the joints of the joints of the joints of the joints of the joints of the joints of the joints of the joints of the joints of the joints of the joints of the joints of the joints of the joints of the joints of the joints of the joints of the joints of the joints of joints of the joints

The Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 9,271,484 to the Defendant by July 3, 2015.

[Basis] Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap's evidence Nos. 5 through 7, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul's evidence Nos. 5 through 8 (including each number), the purpose of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff asserts that according to the results of Madio appraisal by the National Scientific Investigation Agency entrusted by the investigative agency, the defendant cannot be deemed to have suffered bodily injury on the shoulder part due to the accident in this case, so the defendant asserts that the plaintiff should return the above insurance money 9,271,484 won and damages for delay which he received as the medical expenses of the above injury, to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 4, "in the Ediology appraisal conducted by the National Institute of Scientific Investigation at the request of the District Police Agency," there is a possibility that two copies or the Madiology injury may occur to the defendant due to the accident of this case.