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, a company running non-life insurance business, is an insurer who has concluded an automobile comprehensive insurance for the Plaintiff’s automobile B and C (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s automobile”), and the Defendant is a driver of D 124C Large Land & C (hereinafter “Defendant Oba”).

B. Around 14:18 on November 30, 2013, when driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle and driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle in Daegu-gu Dong-dong 1 was straighted in the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the movement, while the vehicle was at the right edge and the vehicle was at the right edge, the vehicle was parked on the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the Defendant Ortoba, who moved on the crosswalk located in the front of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, was shocked on the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

In the instant accident, the Defendant received medical treatment at a hospital due to an injury under class 8 attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 4,038,350 during the period from December 30, 2013 to March 5, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1-1 to 13, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and its judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion occurred due to the Defendant’s unilateral negligence, and thus, the Defendant is liable for damages to the insured. Thus, the Defendant should return the hospital treatment expenses already paid to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. According to the facts of the judgment 1, it is recognized that the accident of this case occurred due to negligence on the part of the defendant driving the defendant Oba while the pedestrian signal was red, but the accident of this case occurred. On the other hand, the driver B who driven the plaintiff vehicle also fell under the straight line at the time of the accident of this case, and the vehicle of this case was cut down on the exclusive lane prior to the right ofpass.