1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The defendant is against the plaintiff succeeding intervenor 4,649.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who concluded each comprehensive insurance contract with Nonparty D and E (hereinafter “Second Vehicle”) with respect to Nonparty B and C (hereinafter “Party 1”).

B. On April 9, 2011, around 9:20, the Defendant was faced with the first vehicle of H driving, which is left and left at the center line on the alleyway in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, driving a way from the right edge to the right edge of the Daejin-ri (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

(hereinafter referred to as “first accident”). (c)

On April 11, 2011, at around 8:15, the Defendant used the Defendant’s vehicle for temporary suspension in the vicinity of the Incheon Hocheon-dong, Gangdong-gu, Seoul for a long time, repeating the Defendant’s vehicle, and faced the Defendant’s vehicle with the two vehicles by driving the D driving prior to the Defendant’s vehicle with the water line and the power-driven radius.

(hereinafter referred to as “second accident”). D.

On April 11, 2011, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,400,000 for the repair cost of the Defendant’s vehicle due to the second accident, and KRW 1,740,000 for the repair cost of the Defendant’s vehicle due to the first accident on April 13, 2011 to the Defendant, and KRW 509,500 for the repair cost of the first vehicle on March 23, 2012 to the Defendant, respectively.

E. On the other hand, on May 27, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred its business to the Plaintiff’s successor to the insurance contract in a comprehensive manner pursuant to Article 140(1) of the Insurance Business Act, and the Plaintiff’s successor succeeded to the rights and obligations under the Plaintiff’s insurance contract pursuant to Article 146(1) of the Insurance Business Act.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1, 2, and 4 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that since the defendant intentionally caused each accident of this case in order to acquire the vehicle repair cost, etc., the plaintiff is responsible for returning the sum of KRW 4,649,500 to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment or damages for the plaintiff, since the defendant intentionally caused the accident of this case in order to obtain the vehicle repair cost, etc., the sum of KRW 4,140,000 and KRW 509,500 paid to the policyholder B.

The defendant against this, Nos. 1 and 1.