The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”). The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. On October 25, 2018, around 07:46, the Defendant’s driver violated the signal at the intersection of the road located in Suwon-si E, Suwon-si, but left left, and shocked the Plaintiff’s vehicle in response to the signal at the end of the horse.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). At the time, the running speed of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was about 60km/h, the speed limit of which exceeded 47km/h.

C. According to FSC’s determination of 20% of the negligence of the Plaintiff’s driver on the instant accident and 80% of the negligence of the Defendant’s driver on September 19, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,084,720 of the repair cost to the Defendant who paid the repair cost of the Defendant’s vehicle on September 19, 2019.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 8, each entry or video of evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 5, and purport of whole pleadings]

2. The parties' assertion

A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the total negligence of the Defendant’s driver, the Plaintiff claimed KRW 2,084,720 out of the repair cost of the Defendant’s vehicle, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to return it to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. At the time of the Defendant’s assertion, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident runs at a speed exceeding the restricted speed. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s driver’s negligence caused the instant accident by shocking the Defendant’s vehicle as it was impossible to detect and control the Defendant’s vehicle already entering the intersection, and due to the overwork, the damage amount is growing. In light of the above, the driver’s fault ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle is more than 20%.

Therefore, the defendant is equivalent to the ratio of negligence from the plaintiff.