1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. Of the total costs of litigation, the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with the Plaintiff Company B (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with C Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. On July 1, 2014, around 00:30, the Defendant’s vehicle parked at the first lane along the three-lane road in Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, along the first lane, while driving along the three-lane road, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle temporarily stops for the purpose of changing the lane, and the part of the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle was shocked by the front part of the lower part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

In the instant accident, E, F, and G on board the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “victims”) suffered injuries, and the Defendant paid the victims totaling KRW 9,447,720 as mutual aid money.

On November 23, 2015, the committee for deliberation on indemnity disputes decided that the negligence ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and Defendant’s vehicle related to the instant accident was 2:8. On December 17, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,889,530 equivalent to the negligence ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (20%) determined by the said committee among the mutual aid amounting to KRW 9,447,720 paid to the Defendant on December 17, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 7 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The plaintiff asserts that since the accident in this case occurred due to the total negligence of the defendant's vehicle, which neglected the duty to ensure the safety distance, the defendant is obligated to return 1,889,530 won paid by the plaintiff in unjust enrichment. 2) The defendant asserts that the defendant conflict with the defendant's vehicle, which followed the plaintiff's vehicle, and therefore, the negligence of the plaintiff's vehicle in this case exceeds 20% on the wind that the plaintiff's vehicle immediately before the accident in this case was rapidly stopped to change its course from the first to the third one.

B. Determination