1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the Plaintiff’s claim expanded at the trial room, shall be modified as follows:

The defendant.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 6 (including branch numbers in which a branch number is attached), and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings:

On December 9, 2012, the Defendant driving a vehicle B (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant vehicle”) on December 11:25, 2012, and driving a three-lane road in front of the New Asia department store in the south-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Seoul, along the two-lanes from the department store to the new world department store, and driving a three-lane change into another three-lane, the Defendant shocked the D Driving Vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) running along the said three-lanes of the said road while driving the vehicle on the two-lanes. The Defendant, consistent with the Plaintiff’s vehicle, sustained injuries, such as chills and chills, by continuously shocking the vehicles driven along the other vehicles parked on the two-lanes and opposite lanes prior to the foregoing vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”). B.

The plaintiff is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a mutual aid agreement for the plaintiff vehicle.

C. By January 3, 2004, the Plaintiff paid KRW 24,005,495 to the Defendant’s medical expenses incurred from the instant accident.

2. The accident of this case occurred around the plaintiff's assertion, since the defendant's vehicle was rapidly changed in the lane, the accident of this case occurred due to the former negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle, and there was no negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return the medical expenses paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff 24,005,495 as unjust enrichment.

Preliminaryly, from among the fact that the defendant alleged as the injury caused by the accident in this case, the escape certificate of the conical signboard and the conical signboard escape certificate of the conical signboard escape certificate of the conical signboard that the defendant alleged as the injury in this case does not have causation with the accident in this case due to the defendant's king, and since the escape certificate of the conical signboard escape certificate also has a contribution to the accident in this case, the defendant has a duty to return medical expenses corresponding to the part without causation to the plaintiff

3. Determination A.