1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff ordering payment to the defendant shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. A, while driving the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle B B B (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) and driving the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle on the second line expressway in Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, Gangwon-do, a sudden stop in the vicinity of the entrance and exit of the Hongcheon-gun branch. The Plaintiff’s vehicle following the Plaintiff’s vehicle was also stopped rapidly. The E-vehicle, an insured vehicle of the Defendant driven by D, who followed the said Grandton, (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”), who was an insured vehicle of the Defendant, driven by D, was towing the front part of the said Sexton vehicle, and the said Sexton vehicle was pushed back the Plaintiff’s vehicle by pushing the said Sexton vehicle.

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

On August 10, 2015, the Automobile Insurance Compensation Deliberation Committee decided that the amount of damages to be borne by the Plaintiff is 5,68,000 won (27,940,000 won x 20%) out of the insurance money paid by the Defendant to be paid by the Defendant, taking into account 20% of the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and 80% of the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle.

C. On August 27, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,688,00 to the Defendant according to the decision of the Automatic Insurance Policy Deliberation Committee.

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and images]

2. Determination

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion lies in 20% of the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in relation to the instant accident, and the Defendant paid KRW 5,688,00 per negligence to the Defendant. However, there was no negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in relation to the instant accident, and the Defendant is obligated to return the said amount received from the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. According to the overall purport of the pleadings in the video of the evidence Nos. 3 and 5 as to each of the images of the instant case, in order to have a imprisoned vehicle driven behind the Plaintiff’s vehicle that had been driven on the first line of the Highway near the instant expressway, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven behind the instant expressway, at around 11:42:43 to 45 seconds, and at least 11:42:47, 48 seconds, in order to stop off the expressway exit.