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 an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to a vehicle A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the vehicle B (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On October 1, 2015, at around 10:00, an accident occurred that conflicts between the side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s right side on the third-lanes from the northwest of the Cyang River to the left side of the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. After paying the insured amount of KRW 600,000 to the insured, the Defendant filed a petition for deliberation with the Plaintiff to the committee for deliberation on disputes over indemnity amount (hereinafter “Deliberation Committee”).

The Deliberation Committee determined that the accident of this case occurred due to shock of the defendant vehicle while the plaintiff vehicle was changing the vehicle in a unreasonable manner, and decided to deliberate on and coordinate the ratio of the plaintiff vehicle and the defendant vehicle to 7:3.

On August 18, 2016, the Plaintiff paid 420,000 won (=600,000 won x 70%) to the Defendant as damages according to the deliberation and resolution decision of the Deliberation Committee.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1, 3 evidence, Eul's 1 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion that the accident of this case occurred by shocking the plaintiff's vehicle that the defendant vehicle driven in the four-lanes of the winter intersection, while changing the three-lanes to the three-lanes, and this is due to the total negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle. Thus, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is obliged to return 420,000 won that the plaintiff paid to the defendant as unjust enrichment according to the erroneous decision of the Deliberation Committee.

On the other hand, the defendant had been driving the vehicle normally in three lanes, but the plaintiff's vehicle was set at a two-lane, and the defendant's vehicle was deprived of the vehicle while changing the vehicle from the real line to the three-lane.