The part concerning the claim for return of unjust enrichment in the first instance judgment is included in the extension and reduction claim in this court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with D-si vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicles”).

B. At around 17:00 on May 8, 2019, E had the Defendant, who is a passenger, carried on the back seat, and operated the Plaintiff’s vehicle before the G Child Care Center in Gyeyang-gu, Gyeyang-gu.

In front of the child care center, the Defendant: “Isle Scoper Scoper Scoper,” and approximately two seconds after opening a back door and unloaded from a non-stopted vehicle to go beyond the road.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

The Defendant was treated by H in the instant accident, resulting in injury to pleecule, kneeing, kneeing, and kneeing, and kneeing, and I Hospital.

The Plaintiff paid 851,280 won to the Defendant by July 15, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 7, Gap evidence No. 4 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant: (a) opened a door of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in motion and sustained injury; (b) it constitutes an act by the Defendant’s free will, not due to E’s criminal act or refusal of defect demand.

This constitutes an exemption from liability under Article 3 (2) proviso of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and the plaintiff is not liable for the damage suffered by the defendant, and the plaintiff claims against the defendant for the return of the medical expenses incurred in relation to the accident in this case as unjust enrichment.

3. Even if a passenger is dead or injured, the operator of the judged motor vehicle shall be exempted from the liability for damages under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act if the death or injury was caused by his/her intentional act

(Article 3 (proviso No. 2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act). According to Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and Gap evidence No. 4 video, the defendant himself/herself while the plaintiff's vehicle is proceeding along one-lane road.