The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of the claim.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the insurer of C vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), and the Defendant is the insurer of D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On March 7, 2019, around 16:31, at the F parking lot located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E, an accident that conflicts with the Defendant’s vehicle, which was located on the left side from the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the left side of the vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On October 21, 2019, with respect to the instant accident on October 21, 2019, the committee for deliberation on indemnity payments determined the ratio of negligence between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s vehicle to 70% (Plaintiff’s vehicle): 30% (Defendant’s vehicle).

On November 8, 2019, the Plaintiff paid 1,832,600 won (=2,618,000 won x 70%) equivalent to the fault ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle out of the insurance money 2,618,000 that the Defendant paid to the Defendant at the repair cost of the Defendant’s vehicle (=2,618,000 won).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s vehicle was under direct control for the vehicle moving to the intersection while reporting and operating the Defendant’s vehicle driving on the right side, and the instant accident occurred to the left side. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the negligence ratio is 30% of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and 70% of the Defendant’s vehicle. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s fault amounting to KRW 1,047,200, out of KRW 1,832,60, which the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant on the premise of 70% of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s fault, constitutes the Defendant’s unjust enrichment, and the Defendant must return the said KRW 1,047,200 to the Plaintiff. (2) The Defendant’s instant accident conflicts with the Plaintiff’s vehicle entering the intersection by neglecting the front line on the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle while entering the intersection, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle entering the intersection prior to the intersection is obligated to yield the course to the Defendant’s vehicle directly located on the right side.