1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On January 2, 2014, the Plaintiff’s assertion A (191) driven a benz car at around 23:00 to 24:00 on January 2, 2014, and caused benz to benz, thereby damaging the front benz and the right bener of the benz car.

On January 3, 2014, C, in collusion with A on January 3, 2014, at around 04:14, C intentionally shocked D A-WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWS,

Accordingly, the plaintiff paid insurance money of KRW 29,986,00 to the automobile industry that accepted the benz car at its repair cost, such as the benz car per day.

The repair cost of YEA is to be paid by the Defendant, who entered into an insurance contract with the borrower as the insurance money for his own vehicle damage security. Since the Plaintiff was punished for fraud due to the above act (the above two persons were punished for fraud by the said act), the Defendant, as unjust enrichment, should pay the Plaintiff KRW 29,986,00,00.

2. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the above traffic accident occurred by the driver of the above benz car per himself/herself due to shocking news block, and that it is an insurance accident subject to insurance payment due to self-vehicle damage security of the defendant automobile insurance contract.

Rather, according to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the defendant's insurance contract (the insurance period: from October 8, 2013 to October 8, 2014) of the above benz automobiles included "the "the 26 years of age or older and the 26 years of age or older" in the insurance contract for the above benz automobiles (the insurance period: from October 8, 2013 to October 8, 2014). A driving a benz car is less than 26 years of age and is not a registered insured. Thus, since the above benz shock accident is not an insured,

On the other hand, the defendant after the closing of the argument in this case.