1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with B (hereinafter “Defendant”) on the vehicle on behalf of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”).

B. On April 24, 2016, around 13:20, the Defendant vehicle was running along the three-lanes of the Seoul Mapopool, ambal Winter Stamball, the lower part on the left side of the Plaintiff vehicle driven in the same direction on the right side of the vehicle and the lower part on the right side of the front part of the Defendant vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On August 29, 2016, the committee for deliberation on indemnity disputes decided to deliberate on and coordinate the liability ratio of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s vehicle to 8:2, on the ground that the instant accident occurred, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was changed from the vehicle due to the rapid stop conditions after the collision between the Plaintiff’s and the Defendant’s vehicle.

On September 21, 2016, the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant KRW 1,472,80 equivalent to the Plaintiff’s vehicle liability ratio of the repair cost paid by the Defendant, among the repair cost of KRW 1,840,990, according to the deliberation and resolution by the committee for deliberation on indemnity disputes.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3 through 12, and Eul evidence 1 to 4, and video

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the previous negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle, while driving on the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, changing the Defendant’s vehicle to the right side line, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to return KRW 1,472,800 paid by the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

(2) The Defendant’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to shocking the Defendant’s vehicle that had been on the six-lanes due to the rapid change of the vehicle. As such, the ratio of liability is 80% of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and 20% of the Defendant’s vehicle, such as the decision of the deliberation and resolution of the committee for deliberation on indemnity disputes.

B. Circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted earlier, namely, the occurrence of the instant accident.