1. The counterclaim Defendant: (a) with respect to KRW 148,99,491 among the Plaintiff and KRW 128,99,491 among the Plaintiff and KRW 128,99,491 from January 10, 2015; and (b)0,000.

1. Basic facts

A. The Counterclaim Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with D Co., Ltd. and E on the vehicle (hereinafter “Counterclaim Plaintiff”), and the Counterclaim Defendant is the owner of G car (hereinafter “Counterclaim Defendant”).

B. On January 30, 2013, around 19:30, there was a traffic accident (hereinafter “instant accident”) involving the shocking of the lower wheels of the counter-Defendant vehicle driven by the counter-Defendant Defendant while driving his vehicle in the H-Defendant parking lot at the Sinpo-si, Sinpo-si, Sinpo-si.

C. On February 1, 2013, the counterclaim Defendant: (a) diagnosed “a multi-chloud salt pans (pactines), a multi-chloudal coordinates, and a conical signboard escape from the 5th 1,000 square meters; (b) received treatment at several medical institutions, such as receiving hospitalized treatment from the I Hospital until March 5, 2013.

As the insurer of the Counterclaim vehicle, the Lessee paid the insurance proceeds in the name of KRW 128,99,491 in total from April 11, 2013 to January 9, 2015, and the insurance proceeds in the name of KRW 20 million in total from July 29, 2013 to November 20, 2014, respectively.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry in the evidence of Nos. 1 through 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of the counterclaim

A. Although there was no causation between the instant accident and the injury of the counterclaim Defendant, the counterclaim Defendant received the total of KRW 148,99,491 from the counterclaim and the insurance proceeds in the name of the medical expenses and the provisional payment, and thus, is liable to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the above amount and to pay damages for delay.

B. 1) The following facts or circumstances, which are acknowledged by adding up the respective descriptions and the entire arguments, as follows, to each evidence that incurred prior to the occurrence of the obligation to return unjust enrichment, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 8, 10, 12, and 13 (tentative number) (i.e., the counter Defendant is the injury or disease, namely, ① the counter Defendant’s “other vertebrates accompanied by the neutism” on December 30, 2006.