1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The circumstances surrounding the instant accident are as follows.

At the time of the accident, the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle CD on April 28, 2018 at the time of the accident, in the situation of the collision between the E-distance in the upper E-distance in Ansan-si, Sinsan-si at the location of 12:00 on April 28, 2018, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was a U-turn at the same five-lane of the above location. The Defendant’s vehicle behind the same lane was left left at the right edge of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the Defendant’s vehicle followed the left part of the Defendant’s vehicle was shocked by the driver’s upper part of the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the Defendant’s vehicle was paid with the repair cost of KRW 1,924,

B. As above, the Defendant paid KRW 1,924,920 at the repair cost of the Defendant’s vehicle, and the F Deliberation Committee had been deliberated upon due to the failure to reach an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The said Committee recognized the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle as 40% and decided to pay KRW 969,968 for indemnity. The Plaintiff paid KRW 969,960 to the Defendant on December 7, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Although it could be clearly known that the Plaintiff’s vehicle will make a U-turn at the U-turn point, the Defendant’s vehicle forced the Plaintiff to turn to the left while overtakinging the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the instant accident occurred due to the previous negligence of the Defendant’s driver.

Therefore, the amount of KRW 969,960, which the Plaintiff first paid to the Defendant according to the F Deliberation Committee’s decision that determined the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle as 40%, was the Defendant’s unjust enrichment without any legal cause, and thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to return it

B. The Plaintiff’s vehicle begins to change the direction toward the steering direction to the left-hand side in the yellow line section, which is the section where the U.S. is prohibited from the U.S., and is in conflict with the Defendant’s vehicle.