1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 179,813,060 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from October 2, 2015 to December 3, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with B and C Ethler (hereinafter “Plaintiff”)

B. At around 15:20 on May 19, 2013, the Defendant, while driving a D Pote-Tech car (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”), attempted to make an illegal internship at the three-distance intersection where no signal, etc. is available while driving a two-lane road in front of the F Company’s emotional located in E at all times.

E. The Plaintiff’s vehicle driven by Maed B was proceeding in the same direction, but there was an accident of conflict between the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the left part of the Defendant’s vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

The Defendant suffered injury, due to the instant accident, such as an injury, which was caused by a fresh cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral tyes with no open address in the head, a frehal tymal sage, a frehal dull, a frehal dull, a brehal satal satal satal sat,

The Plaintiff paid KRW 179,813,060 in total to the Defendant during the period from October 25, 2013 to October 1, 2015, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-8 evidence, Gap 10 evidence, Eul 1-6 evidence (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred by the Defendant’s illegal internship, and there was no negligence with the Plaintiff’s driver B, and the Plaintiff, the insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, did not bear any liability for damages inflicted on the Defendant due to the instant accident.

B Under the premise that the Plaintiff was negligent, KRW 179,813,060 paid to the Defendant must be returned as unjust enrichment.

B. The Defendant’s assertion B did not sufficiently secure the safety distance with the Defendant’s vehicle, and found the abnormal operation of the Defendant vehicle.