1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to DE vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”), with respect to C Copi vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to D E vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On July 28, 2017, around 22:50, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was in the vicinity of the Han-wheeled Station located in the Sindong-gu, Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant accident”). Around July 28, 2017, there was an accident in which the Plaintiff’s vehicle concealed the lower part of the lower part of the Defendant’s vehicle.

C. Around January 15, 2018, the FSC decided to deliberate and coordinate the instant accident with 60% of the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle and 40% of the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. On February 6, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,761,360, an amount equivalent to 40% of the repair cost of the Defendant’s vehicle, to the Defendant on February 6, 2018.

[Grounds for recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion was caused by the total negligence of the Defendant’s driver.

Therefore, since the plaintiff paid 2,761,360 won to the defendant as repair cost for the damage of the defendant's vehicle caused by the accident of this case without any legal ground, the defendant shall return the above money to the plaintiff with unjust enrichment.

3. In light of the following circumstances in which evidence Nos. 1, 5, 9 (including paper numbers), 1, 4, and 5 and the purpose of the entire pleadings can be comprehensively taken into account, the instant accident occurred when the negligence of the Plaintiff’s driver, the negligence of the Defendant’s driver, and the negligence of the pre-paid vehicle on the number omitted, were concurrent, and it is reasonable to view that the driver’s fault ratio of the Plaintiff’s driver in the instant accident was 40%.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant unjust enrichment amounting to 40% of the negligence ratio of the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle paid to the Defendant as the repair cost of the Defendant vehicle.

The plaintiff's claim is without merit. A.

The defendant vehicle is a three-lane road along the intersection.