1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. At around 16:50 on October 27, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) driven a CITRI100 (hereinafter “the instant off-road”) which is a motor bicycle, along the instant crosswalk, while driving the said crosswalk on the side at the right side of the road from the side of the road in spite of a pedestrian stop signal in front of the upper and upper intersection of the upper intersection; (b) in accordance with the straight line, the lower part of the front part of the D Driving, which is a motor vehicle driving on the upper and upper intersection of the upper intersection (hereinafter “victim”), from the front side of the instant off-side, was shocked by the front part of the D Driving’s Estuna car (hereinafter “the damaged vehicle”).

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

The Plaintiff received insurance benefits of KRW 22,929,640,00 from October 27, 2015 to June 17, 2016, due to the instant accident, due to the injury, such as “the body’s other frame, openness, etc.,” etc.

C. On August 30, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision of unjust enrichment pursuant to Articles 53(1) and 57 of the National Health Insurance Act and Article 151 of the Road Traffic Act, on the ground that “the case was treated as a flood-free accident (central line, violation of signal),” and notified the Plaintiff on November 7, 2016 that KRW 22,929,640, which was paid as insurance benefits, shall be collected as unjust enrichment.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The plaintiff appealed against the disposition of this case on the ground that "in the course of driving a crosswalk in accordance with the pedestrian signals, the plaintiff's appeal was made against the defendant pursuant to Article 87 of the National Health Insurance Act, on the ground that "the signal of this case is changed as the signal is not caused by intention or gross negligence, because the signal is changed," which means that "in the course of driving a crosswalk in accordance with the pedestrian signals, the plaintiff committed a violation of signal in violation of Article 5 of the Road Traffic Act, and this constitutes a violation of the 11st portion of violation stipulated in the proviso of Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents."