1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On March 14, 2016, around 21:46, there was an accident where the lower part of the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle running in the same direction as the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle, which changed the fleet from three lanes to four lanes from three lanes in the direction of Seoul in the coast Highway at a point of 327.5km in the direction of the city of Ansan-si (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. The Defendant filed a petition with the Plaintiff for deliberation on the amount of KRW 726,470 of the insurance money paid in relation to the instant accident, and the indemnity payment deliberation committee decided that the ratio of the negligence between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s vehicle was 40:60.

Accordingly, on October 6, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 290,590 to the Defendant (i.e., KRW 726,470 x 40%, and below KRW 00).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is solely due to the negligence of the Defendant’s driver, since the instant accident occurred due to the shock of the rear part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle while changing the lane.

Therefore, the defendant must return 290,590 won received from the plaintiff as unjust enrichment without any legal ground.

B. The following circumstances, that are, the instant accident occurred on an expressway at night, taking into account the evidence as seen earlier and the overall purport of the pleadings, namely, the instant accident occurred on the expressway. In such a situation where the securing of view was restricted and the surrounding vehicles are proceeding in high speed, all drivers are obliged to drive safely. In such circumstances, the Defendant vehicle driver who changed the lane in the above situation is the driver of the Defendant vehicle and the driver of the Defendant vehicle who moved to the lane in the direction