1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to A bus (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer that entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On June 1, 2015, at around 10:10, the Plaintiff’s vehicle moved along along a two-lane road near Sungnam-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, Seoul, along the two-lane road, and the part on the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was ahead of the same road, was shocked by the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle as the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as "the accident of this case". (c)

On February 22, 2016, the committee for deliberation on indemnity disputes decided that the ratio of negligence between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle was 8:2, and on March 2, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,739,760 to the Defendant for physical damage equivalent to the ratio of negligence (80%) of the Plaintiff’s decision by the said committee (80%).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case occurred due to negligence on the part of the defendant's driver's failure to secure safety in entering the road that is surrounded by the plaintiff's main vehicle. Thus, the defendant asserts that the defendant is obligated to return the 1,051,620 won and damages for delay corresponding to the defendant's fault ratio among the 1,739,760 won paid by the plaintiff as unjust enrichment among the 1,751,620 won paid by the plaintiff. 2) The defendant asserts that the location of the accident in this case is changed into the modified one, and the driver of the defendant's vehicle in this case was proceeding in one way in accordance with the direct line, and the plaintiff's vehicle was concealed while entering the road in the direction of the defendant's main vehicle. Thus, the decision of the indemnity dispute deliberation committee set the plaintiff's fault as 80% in relation to the accident in this case is reasonable.

B. The above facts of the judgment and the aforementioned facts.