1. The part of the first instance judgment against the Plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurance company that entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to D vehicles owned by the Plaintiff Intervenor (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurance company that entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to E vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On July 29, 2019, at around 19:32, the Defendant’s vehicle, at the intersection in Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, and the intersection in 65-1, transprisoned from the intersection side of the intersection to the tax examination. The Defendant’s vehicle, at the intersection of the intersection to the intersection of the intersection of the intersection, had shocked the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was straighten in the first lane between the two lanes from the IC room, on the one hand (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

The F Review Committee decided on December 23, 2019 that the ratio of negligence between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s vehicle was 15% (Plaintiff’s vehicle): 85% (Defendant’s vehicle) with respect to the instant accident.

(d)

On January 10, 2020, the Plaintiff paid 85,840 won out of the insurance amount that the Defendant paid to the Defendant as the repair cost of the Defendant’s vehicle (=(200,000 won of the Defendant’s insurance amount 372,280 won x 0.15,00 won x less than 0.10 won) as the amount of reimbursement.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the basis of recognition】 The evidence of Gap 1 through 9 (hereinafter referred to as "numbers") and the statements and images of Eul 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion 1) The instant accident involving the Plaintiff and the Intervenor’s Intervenor is an accident that occurred by entering the road in the form of crossing, even though the Defendant’s vehicle was able to fully recognize the Plaintiff’s vehicle that normally proceeds from the Defendant’s direct operation pursuant to the direct operation of the U.S., and the Plaintiff’s vehicle could not have predicted the entry of the Defendant’s vehicle. Therefore, it ought to be viewed as an

Therefore, the defendant should return the amount of 85,840 won paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff as unjust gains.

2) The Defendant’s instant accident is the Defendant’s right of way before the Plaintiff’s vehicle.