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. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to the automobile C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), with respect to the automobile D (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On August 16, 2015, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle changed the lane from the three-lane to the one-lane among the four-lanes in Nam-gu E-do at port on August 16, 2015, the front part of the right-hand part of the Defendant’s vehicle running along the first lane was shocked into the rear part of the Plaintiff’s driver’s seat.

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

The defendant paid 20,420,000 won such as the repair cost of the defendant vehicle as insurance money.

On May 16, 2016, the Defendant filed a request for deliberation with the FSC to seek payment of KRW 20,420,000 of the insurance money paid by the Defendant against the Plaintiff, and the FSC rendered a decision on May 16, 2016 to the effect that “The Plaintiff’s liability ratio is 90%, the Defendant’s liability ratio is 10%, and the deliberated amount is 18,378,00

E. On June 30, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 18,378,00 to the Defendant according to the above decision of deliberation and coordination.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, 10 evidence, Eul evidence 1, 4 through 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. In the occurrence of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the fault of the Plaintiff’s vehicle is limited to 70%, and the repair cost, which is related to the instant accident, is merely KRW 5,169,780 in the first estimate. Thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay only KRW 3,618,846 (= 5,169,780 + 70%) to the Defendant as indemnity.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return 14,759,154 won (=18,378,000 won - 3,618,846 won) exceeding the above KRW 3,618,846 out of KRW 18,378,00 paid by the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. In the occurrence of the instant accident 1, according to the fact of recognition of the fault ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the evidence revealed earlier, the instant accident is two lanes from three lanes to one lane, without properly examining the movement of the Defendant’s vehicle, which is a vehicle following the instant accident.