1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. At the time of an accident involving recognition, a collision with the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the Defendant’s vehicle, the insurance-related Plaintiff’s cto-frima 23 tons at the time of the accident with the two-lanes of the change of the two-lanes between the two-lanes in the flow of the two-lane road at the seat of the Geum-gu, Kim Jong-gu on September 9, 2017, at the time of the date of the establishment of the accident, on September 9, 2017;

A. The particulars of the instant accident are as follows.

B. After paying KRW 9,732,220 of the insurance money to the Defendant’s driver (E), the Defendant filed an application for deliberation and mediation of the instant accident with the Plaintiff at the indemnity payment deliberation committee. On June 18, 2018, the indemnity payment deliberation committee considered the negligence ratio of the instant accident as 20 (Plaintiff’s Vehicle):80 (Defendant’s Vehicle) and decided to deliberate and coordinate the Plaintiff’s payment to the Defendant of KRW 1,946,440 (=the amount of insurance money paid to the Defendant KRW 9,732,220 x 20%, and KRW 20).

C. Accordingly, on July 10, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit claiming for the return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant by paying the said KRW 1,946,440 to the Defendant on the following day.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the party’s assertion argues that the instant accident was caused by the negligence of the Defendant’s driver, and the Defendant asserts to the effect that the Defendant’s fault ratio of 20 (Plaintiff’s vehicle):80 (Defendant’s vehicle) as well as the deliberation and resolution decision by the committee for deliberation on indemnity disputes is appropriate.

B. In the case of changing the course of a sign board, if there is a concern about obstructing the normal traffic of other vehicles running in the direction to which the change is sought, the change of course shall not be made (Article 19(3) of the Road Traffic Act), and the driver of a sea-going vehicle has changed from the first lane to the second lane without properly examining the movement of the damaged vehicles running in the second lane.