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 entered into an automobile insurance contract with C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is a mutual aid operator who has entered into an automobile mutual aid contract with D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On September 23, 2017, around 15:20 on September 23, 2017, an accident occurred between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s vehicle, such as the virtual degree of accident, on the three-lane road (hereinafter “instant road”) of the 639 Dondong-gu, Seosung-gu, Daejeon.

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

The Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for deliberation and coordination of the indemnity fee dispute deliberation committee (hereinafter referred to as the “deliberation committee”), and the deliberation committee on June 11, 2018 changed the car line beyond the safety zone prior to entry into the intersection by the Defendant.

In consideration of the fact that the accident of this case occurred, the fault ratio of the plaintiff vehicle and the defendant vehicle was 10:90. D.

On July 3, 2018, the Plaintiff paid 242,700 won at the cost of repairing the Defendant’s vehicle corresponding to 10% of the fault ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and filed the instant lawsuit on the same day.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the instant accident was driven by the Plaintiff’s vehicle in a three-lane, the straight lane, but the Defendant’s vehicle is driving at a two-lane, the left left-hand lane.

The defendant asserts that since it is an accident caused by the unilateral negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle due to the occurrence of the change of the safety zone to the three-lanes, the defendant should return to the plaintiff 242,700 won received according to the decision of the deliberation committee in unjust enrichment.

On the other hand, the defendant is also responsible for the driver of the plaintiff vehicle.