1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The part resulting from the intervention in the appeal costs shall be the intervenor joining the defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with B (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is the owner and driver of C Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. Around 14:55 on June 9, 2014, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle and going to the ground from the D Apartment Underground Parking Lot at Yangyang-si, was shocked by the Defendant’s vehicle who was landed from the ground to the underground parking lot.

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

On July 11, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,428,600 to the repair cost of Defendant vehicle.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the former negligence of the Defendant driven by the center line. As such, the Defendant shall return to the Plaintiff the insurance money equivalent to the repair cost that the Plaintiff had paid, as unjust enrichment.

(2) The instant accident involving the Defendant and the Defendant’s Intervenor occurred due to the Plaintiff’s fault on the part of the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle while driving a parking lot with a strong flick field, without careful attention. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s negligence should be taken into account.

B. According to the above evidence, the defendant was found to have driven the central line at the time of the accident in this case, while the driver of the plaintiff vehicle invadedd the central line.

or did not properly state a brupt.

The circumstances that can be seen as operating normally by violating or violating the duty of performance do not peep.

Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s total negligence, so the Defendant is obligated to return the amount equivalent to the repair cost that the Plaintiff paid to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

3. Conclusion Plaintiff