The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff as the supplementary intervenor.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to D vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicles”). The Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to E vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

B. On August 22, 2019, around 21:06, an accident occurred between the Plaintiff’s vehicle that had already been driving along the revolving the revolving intersection in the direction of the Goi-gu, Young-gu and the Defendant’s vehicle that had entered the revolving intersection (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. After paying insurance money of KRW 3,115,430 to the Defendant’s vehicle damages caused by the instant accident, the Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for deliberation on the ratio of negligence of the instant accident to the FDispute Deliberation Committee (hereinafter “Crona”).

On January 13, 2020, the appellate court decided to deliberate and decide on the ratio of negligence between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle in relation to the instant accident to 30:70 (hereinafter “instant decision”).

On February 3, 2020, the Plaintiff paid KRW 934,620 according to the instant decision to the Defendant, and thereafter filed the instant lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff paid the amount of indemnity to the defendant according to the decision of this case, but the accident of this case occurred by the whole negligence of the defendant's vehicle, so the decision of this case recognizing the negligence of the plaintiff's vehicle is erroneous.

Therefore, since there is no legal ground for the above indemnity amount, the defendant shall return it to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. The following circumstances, which can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the evidence revealed in the basis of the determination, namely, the driver of the defendant vehicle who intends to enter the intersection, is the driver of the vehicle who has already driven the intersection, and is taking place the movement of the vehicle driving the intersection and preventing accidents.