1. The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's main claim is dismissed;

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) shall be the opposing defendant.

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to a car A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) with respect to a car B high-speed car (hereinafter “Defendant”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to a car B high-speed car (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On June 15, 2013, at around 23:30 on June 15, 2013, C driving a vehicle on the part of the Defendant side, and driving the vehicle in front of Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, along five lanes from the moving intersection to the moving intersection. On the other hand, C shocked the backer on the right side of the Plaintiff’s side of the E driving driving, driving the front direction of the vehicle on the front side of the Defendant side.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

By March 17, 2014, the defendant paid C insurance proceeds of KRW 65,063,860 in total.

On November 6, 2013, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 2,227,110 equivalent to 30% out of C’s medical treatment costs of KRW 7,423,710, which is part of C’s medical treatment costs.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, 6, Eul evidence 1 and 3 (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff: The instant accident occurred due to the full negligence of the Defendant’s driver C, and the Plaintiff’s liability for damages cannot be recognized on the part of the Plaintiff for lack of negligence on the part of the Plaintiff’s driver E.

Therefore, the defendant must return 2,227,110 won received without any legal ground to unjust enrichment.

B. The Defendant: (a) the Plaintiff’s driver E of the vehicle caused the instant accident by interfering with the progress of the Defendant’s vehicle by delaying the sudden speed; (b) the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment is without merit; and (c) further, the Defendant’s claim for payment of the amount equivalent to the percentage of the Defendant’s fault out

3. Determination

A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the entries or images of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 6, and Eul evidence No. 3, the accident of this case is concerned.