beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Plaintiff, which orders additional payment, shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to A New Car (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B automobile volume (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
B. On February 7, 2016: (a) around 23:15, the Plaintiff’s vehicle made a left-hand turn to the left pursuant to the straight line and the left-hand turn at the intersection located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C, and at the same time, around the time the left-hand turn was completed, there was an accident where the Defendant’s vehicle straighted in violation of the signal and shocked the front left-hand turn of the Plaintiff vehicle to the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).
C. On November 11, 2016, the Plaintiff paid 239,200 won to the Defendant, equivalent to 20% of the repair cost of the Defendant’s vehicle according to the decision of the Deliberation Committee on the Disputes over Compensation for Automobile Insurance.
[Ground of recognition] The descriptions and images of Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above fact-finding on the cause of the claim, the accident of this case is deemed to have been caused by the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle, since the accident of this case was caused by the previous negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle, since it seems that it was difficult for the driver of the plaintiff vehicle to avoid the accident because he could have anticipated that the vehicle of this case would be in a direct position in violation of the signal, while the vehicle of this case was in contravention of the signal, and that it was difficult for the driver of the plaintiff vehicle to avoid the accident.
Therefore, the Defendant, without any legal cause, illegally benefited 239,200 won of the insurance proceeds paid by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to the same amount. Accordingly, the Defendant’s unjust enrichment return to the Plaintiff, and thus, from November 12, 2016, the following day after the Plaintiff paid the insurance proceeds, KRW 47,800 of the cited amount in the first instance trial.