1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

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. Around 18:50 on September 23, 2013, while the Plaintiff’s vehicle was proceeding with a two-lanes in the Hannam-dong, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, there was an accident in which the part behind the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle, which changed from the first lane to the second lane, and the part behind the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was contacted.

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

After the Defendant paid KRW 2,255,000 insurance money due to the instant accident to the Defendant’s side, the Defendant filed a request for deliberation with the Motor Vehicle Insurance Dispute Committee for deliberation. On August 18, 2014, the Motor Vehicle Insurance Dispute Deliberation Committee set the negligence ratio between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle to 55: 45.

On February 13, 2015, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking return of unjust enrichment on February 16, 2015, while paying KRW 1,240,250 for reimbursement according to the above decision of deliberation and coordination to the Defendant, was unable to consent to the said decision.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case occurred because the defendant vehicle tried to change the lane from the first to the second lane, and thus, the defendant's fault should be considered as 70%. On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the accident in this case occurred as the main fault of the plaintiff vehicle while the defendant vehicle was stopped after completing the change of lane from the first to the second lane, and therefore, the decision of the committee for deliberation on the dispute over indemnity amount which judged the rate of negligence between the driver of the plaintiff vehicle and the driver of the defendant vehicle as 5: 45 is reasonable.

3. The Plaintiff’s vehicle’s damaged part of the two vehicles recognized as above and based on each of the evidence mentioned above is behind the right side.