1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

Judgment of the first instance.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff’s B-owned vehicle B (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”)

(3) The Defendant is an insurance company that entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the automobile, and the Defendant is a D vehicle owned by C (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

2) On November 26, 2014, the Defendant’s vehicle, which entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to A, was shocked the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was proceeding on the front part of the front pandebro, while making a left turn to the left at the front side of the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, in accordance with green signals on the Fjun-si roads located in T in Yangju-si, in accordance with green signals.

(3) The Plaintiff calculated the negligence ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in relation to the instant accident. Accordingly, A paid KRW 518,480 as the repair cost, etc. of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the Defendant paid KRW 418,464 as the repair cost and indirect damage cost, etc. of the Defendant’s vehicle, respectively.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred while the Plaintiff was driving along the intersection due to normal driving of the vehicle and passing through the intersection, and the Defendant’s vehicle was shocking the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the left-hand turn, and it is reasonable to view that the fault ratio of the Defendant’s vehicle in relation to the instant accident is 10%.

Nevertheless, the Plaintiff calculated the fault ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle as 20% and paid KRW 936,944 in total with the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle. Accordingly, the Defendant obtained the same amount of profit without any legal cause. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 936,944 in unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff.

C. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant’s fault ratio related to the instant accident is 100%, and rather, each of the evidence and evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as mentioned earlier.