1. The Defendant’s KRW 69,669,770 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from January 11, 2017 to May 17, 2017.

1. Chief;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with Nonparty D and E (hereinafter only referred to as the insured motor vehicle), and the Defendant is driving the insured motor vehicle.

A person who has been reported as a victim of a traffic accident and received hospital operation expenses and medical expenses from the plaintiff.

B. At around 10:35 on January 8, 2016, the occurrence of the accident occurred, where the Defendant, who was seated at the lower 50 meters away from the front gate of the said G company, was driving the insured vehicle at around 10:35, and became a G company located in Daegu North-gu, Daegu-gu, at the point of 50 meters away from the front gate of the G company.

(hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case")

C. The Plaintiff reported that the instant accident occurred in relation to the payment of insurance proceeds. Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid KRW 69,660,770 to the Defendant for hospital operation and treatment expenses by January 10, 2017.

However, the instant accident was confirmed to have intentionally opened the door of the insured vehicle and opened it out of the vehicle as a result of assault or other accidents by the Daegu Gangnam Police Station.

Therefore, since the instant accident constitutes “the death or injury of a passenger by intention or suicide” under Article 3(2) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, the Plaintiff was not obligated to pay the insurance money to the Defendant as above, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said money to the Plaintiff in accordance with the legal principles for return of unjust enrichment.

2. However, in order for the Plaintiff to be exempted from liability for the payment of the damage insurance money to the Defendant, the fact that the Defendant was discharged from the insured vehicle with intent to commit suicide or injury should be proven to a considerable extent in light of social norms or common sense, and the intention here includes willful negligence.

However, the testimony of D and the video or statement of Gap evidence 4.