1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the judgment against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) ordering payment exceeding the following amount.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts below the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements or images of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 (including the number of each unit).

The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with B with respect to C Passenger Vehicles (hereinafter referred to as “instant Passenger Vehicles”).

B. On September 15, 2014, the Defendant: (a) driven a DOtoba (hereinafter “the instant Obaba”); (b) tried to change the lanes to the one-lane of the instant road at around the time when the vehicle passes through the 1-lane of the diesel bus crossing at the Busan post office (hereinafter “instant intersection”) while driving the DOtoba (hereinafter “the instant Obaba”); and (c) tried to change the lanes to the two-lane of the instant road at the repair intersection from the Busan post office (hereinafter “instant intersection”); and (d) tried to change the lanes rapidly without sufficiently examining whether or not the vehicle driven along the first lane of the diesel bus at the end of the same direction; and (e) during that process, the head hand on the right-hand hand of the instant vehicle driven in the same direction as the left-hand hand of the Obababa; and (e) caused the collision to go beyond the center on the road.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

As a result of the instant accident, the Defendant suffered from the injury of blood species, etc. under the acute scarke.

2. Judgment on the parties' arguments

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the accident of this case occurred due to the defendant's unilateral negligence that had tried to change the lane rapidly without examining the existence and attitude of other vehicles passing through the lane in changing the lane, and thus, the plaintiff is not liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages. However, the defendant received insurance money equivalent to KRW 10,791,750 for medical expenses from the plaintiff and gains profits without any legal ground. Thus, the defendant is equivalent to the above insurance money from the plaintiff.