1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

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

B. On September 28, 2016, around 17:07, the Plaintiff’s vehicle proceeds along four lanes on the five-lane road in front of the Samsungdong Samsungdong Samsungdong, Busan, Busan, and reached the intersection. The Defendant’s vehicle proceeds along three-lanes on the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and, while making a right-hand at the said intersection, the front portion of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s left-hand side was shocked toward the right-hand side of the Defendant’s vehicle.

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

According to the instant accident, the Defendant paid KRW 961,00 (except for KRW 240,00,000) as the repair cost of the Defendant’s vehicle (except for the Defendant’s insured vehicle’s self-payment) and filed a request for deliberation with the Plaintiff for the payment of KRW 864,90,00 against the Plaintiff. On February 27, 2017, the committee for deliberation on the amount of indemnity was to consider the negligence between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s vehicle as 3:7, and to have the Plaintiff pay KRW 288,30 to the Defendant (=961,000 x 30% of the negligence ratio of the Plaintiff).

On March 14, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 360,300,00,000 to the Defendant, including the amount equivalent to 30% of the Defendant’s self-paid shares.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry or video, or the whole pleading of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that, while the plaintiff's vehicle was making a normal right-pass at the intersection, the accident of this case occurred by making the defendant vehicle trying to make a right-hand prior to the left-hand side of the plaintiff's vehicle, and the negligence of the defendant vehicle reaches 90%. Thus, the plaintiff's claim that the remaining amount after the plaintiff's fault ratio should be returned to unjust enrichment.

2.3.