1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. Around 10:35 on July 20, 2013, the Plaintiff’s vehicle overlaps with the Defendant’s vehicle that changed the vehicle line from the third line to the first line while changing the vehicle from the third line, and thus, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was destroyed by both the front part of the steering part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the hedge and fences, and the front part of the front part of the driver’s seat, the front part of the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle, and the wheel and door door behind the front part of the Defendant’s driver’s seat.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On June 19, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 7,610,000 for the repair cost of the Defendant to the Defendant according to the negligence ratio (50:50) determined by the deliberation and decision of the Committee for Deliberation on Mediation of Disputes over Claims on the Accident of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 7, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including each number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant accident occurred by the unilateral negligence of Defendant 1’s vehicle in an unreasonable way in order to make an illegal internship at the point of accident, and claimed against the Defendant that the amount equivalent to the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff should be refunded as unjust enrichment.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserted that the instant accident conflicts with the Plaintiff’s vehicle that was changed in the same direction while overtaking the Defendant’s vehicle at the point where the road safety sealing was completed, which was installed between the two lanes and the three lanes of the Plaintiff’s vehicle following the Defendant’s vehicle, and the instant accident occurred. As such, the fault ratio deliberated upon and decided by the Committee for Deliberation on Mediation of Disputes over Claims for Reimbursements is justifiable.

(b).