1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 50,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from January 27, 2016 to July 22, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with Nonparty B on the C Coin Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the driver of D Coin Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. At around 10:10 on July 5, 2008, the Defendant driven the Defendant’s vehicle and shocked the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the same direction from the front street in the front of the Chungcheongbuk-gun E.

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

The accident of this case led to the destruction of the original Defendant vehicle, and the Defendant suffered serious injury, such as the blood transfusion, cerebral blood transfusion, etc., which can be seen as having been born.

The fire insurance company between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the insurer of the vehicle, has completed the settlement of the vehicle repair cost by consulting 20% of the negligence of the Plaintiff vehicle and 80% of the negligence of the Defendant vehicle.

E. Since the instant accident, the Defendant was hospitalized in the Cheongsung Hospital until now, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 804,747,470 as medical expenses.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of whole pleadings

2. In full view of the above-mentioned determination as to the cause of the instant accident and the circumstances such as the collision part of the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s vehicle, and the Defendant’s investigation as the perpetrator of the instant accident, it is reasonable to view that the ratio of liability for the instant accident is 20%, and 80%, of the Defendant’s vehicle.

On the other hand, the defendant did not have any intent to claim damages against the plaintiff and to prove the scope of damages.

If so, the defendant unjust enrichment of KRW 643,797,976, which is 80% of the medical expenses paid by the plaintiff at will by the plaintiff.

As such, the defendant is obligated to return it to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant rendered a judgment from January 27, 2016, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, as sought by the Plaintiff, which is KRW 50,000,000 that the Plaintiff claims as part of unjust enrichment.