1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 6,785,080 and KRW 5,588,720 among them.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to B buses (hereinafter “Plaintiff buses”).

B. On April 18, 2016, around 19:30 on April 18, 2016, Plaintiff bus stops at the bus stop at the center of the 45 U.S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S.S., and entered the crossing in accordance with the driving signal at the front of the bus stop.

C. The defendant, who was on the right side of the bus that the plaintiff bus entered the crossing road, was placed in the direction of the running side of the above bus, was placed in the roadway with the pedestrian signal on the crosswalk, and the defendant was faced with the face on the right side side of the bus of the plaintiff bus and suffered injuries, such as a downhill.

Upon the Defendant’s request under Article 11(2) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, the Plaintiff paid advance payment of KRW 5,588,720, and KRW 1,196,360 ( = 5,588,720, = 1,196,360) to the Korea National University Cancer Hospital for which the Defendant received medical treatment until July 4, 2016, as total of KRW 6,785,080 ( = 5,588,720).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries and images of Gap evidence 1 to 10 (including additional numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's accident of this case occurred due to the full negligence of the defendant, who was landed to the crosswalk in a situation where the pedestrian signal of the crosswalk is red and the bus is close to the bus, and the plaintiff's bus driver was not able to predict that the defendant would get off the crosswalk, and therefore, the plaintiff is not liable to compensate for the damage of the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant should return the advance payment made by the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. At the time of Defendant 1, there were a large number of people on the crosswalk, and thus, as a driver who enters the crosswalk, he/she is required to walk or temporarily stop in front of the crosswalk, but the driver of the Plaintiff bus neglected to do so, and did not take a warning before the crosswalk passes.