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. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement with A to compensate for damage where A is liable for damage with respect to an accident caused by the operation of the Plaintiff’s vehicle with respect to B-cab for business use (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer that entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with C-police vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On February 10, 2012, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven by A is driving on the two-lane road in front of the Sungdong Police Station located in Sungdong-dong on February 9:10, 2012, along the direction of racing from the dynamic distance.

On the other hand, while the two-lanes of U.S. have been a U.S., the two-lanes of U.S. conflict with the left-hand side by the defendant's vehicle entering the intersection.

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

The Defendant filed an application for deliberation with the committee for deliberation on the instant accident, and the committee for deliberation on the amount of indemnity on June 10, 2013 determined the ratio of liability between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle to 80:20, and on July 1, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,423,200 to the Defendant as the amount of indemnity according to the above ratio of liability.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the total negligence of Defendant’s vehicle running over the center line. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff KRW 1,423,200 received from the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment according to the decision of the Deliberation Committee on Disputes over Claims.

3. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged to include the overall purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 6, namely, ① the point where the instant accident occurred in a place where the U-turn is not allowed, but the Plaintiff’s vehicle began unreasonably on the two-lanes, and ② the Defendant’s vehicle with the first-laneed vehicle is the course by the Plaintiff’s vehicle in U-turn.