1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked, and the Defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with A for B truck (hereinafter “Plaintiff”). The Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract for C Passenger Vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. On October 14, 2013, around 15:45, an accident occurred that conflicts between the fronter part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the rear wheeler part of the Defendant’s motor vehicle at the south of the South-west intersection located in the pressure-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul.

(hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case", and the detailed contents of the accident are as shown in the attached Form.

After the instant accident, the Defendant paid KRW 8,448,00 of the insurance money as the repair cost of the Defendant’s vehicle, and then claimed reimbursement of the total amount of the insurance money paid as the indemnity amount to the Plaintiff as the Defendant. On April 28, 2014, the committee for deliberation on the disputes over indemnity amount decided that the Defendant’s negligence on the part of the Defendant’s vehicle that passed through the safety zone completely and passed through the safety zone on April 28, 2014, and that there was a significant change in the course to the port, and that the safety zone was partially covered by the Defendant’s vehicle and the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the ratio of liability of the Defendant’s vehicle and the Plaintiff’s vehicle to “30%,” and the Plaintiff’s “payment to the Defendant of KRW 2,534,400 equivalent to 30% of the said insurance amount.”

On June 20, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,534,40 to the Defendant according to the above deliberation and coordination decision, and filed the instant lawsuit seeking return of the said KRW 2,534,400 against the Defendant as unjust enrichment on August 25, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-5, Eul 1-2, and the purport of the whole of the arguments and images.

2. According to the records of the instant accident, the point of accident, the part of the collision between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle, and the fact that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was at the time of the collision, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was at the time of the collision, and according to the video of the Plaintiff’s 5, before and after the