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. Facts of recognition;

A. With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. Around 20:00 on September 28, 2016, the Defendant’s vehicle driven the art No. 140-ro 140-ro, Nam-gu, Incheon, Nam-gu, to the art 507-ro hives of art, and the lower part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s left-hand on the right-hand side, which was stopped on the right-hand side, was shocked into the front-hand part of the Defendant

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

On October 14, 2016, the Defendant paid KRW 1,039,00 (except for self-charges 259,000) as insurance money.

The Defendant filed a petition with the Plaintiff for deliberation on the claim for partial payment of KRW 1,039,00,000 of the insurance money paid by the Defendant against the Plaintiff. On January 23, 2017, the said deliberation committee rendered a decision to deliberate and coordinate the purport that “10% of the liability ratio of the petitioner (the Defendant), 10% of the respondent (the Plaintiff), 10% of the liability ratio of the respondent (the respondent), and 103,90 won of the deliberated amount.”

E. On March 10, 2017, the Defendant sought payment of KRW 129,800 equivalent to 10% of the total amount of damages to the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 1,039,000 of the insurance money paid by the Defendant) (i.e., KRW 259,000), and accordingly, the Plaintiff paid KRW 129,800 to the Defendant on March 15, 2017.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, Eul evidence 2, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 1 and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant accident occurred due to the negligence of the Defendant’s driver, and there is no proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopping and the instant accident. Therefore, the Defendant should return KRW 129,800, which the Plaintiff paid as the reimbursement amount, as unjust enrichment. 2) The Defendant’s assertion to the Plaintiff’s driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle is prohibited from stopping.