1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal shall be the first instance.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with the Plaintiff Oralba (hereinafter “Plaintiff Oralba”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with the Defendant with respect to D Poter vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicles”).

B. On January 24, 2019, the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle driven the Defendant’s vehicle and driven the Defendant’s vehicle along the three-lanes along the coast near the new city, Seodo-dong, Seogyeong-dong, which changed the course from the two-lanes to the three-lanes on the two-lanes on the above road, caused an accident of shocking the Plaintiff’s Obaba into the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

(c)

On August 26, 2019, the deliberation committee decided the negligence ratio of the plaintiff Otoba and the defendant vehicle to 100% (the plaintiff Otoba): 0% (the defendant vehicle).

(d)

On September 30, 2019, the Plaintiff paid 3,319,940 won to the Defendant as compensation for the insurance money that the Defendant paid to the Defendant as repair expenses, etc. of the Defendant’s vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 8, Eul evidence No. 1 (including branch numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) At the time of the instant accident, the Defendant’s vehicle was under speed and violated the standard lane for the truck under the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, and the instant accident occurred by the negligence between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s driver, and the fault ratio of the Defendant’s driver ought to be 30%.

Therefore, 95,982 won (i.e., 3,319,940 won x 30%) equivalent to the fault ratio of the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle out of 3,319,940 won for indemnity that the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant on the premise of the previous negligence of the driver of Oralba, who is the Plaintiff, constitutes an unjust benefit of the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant should return the said KRW 995,98

2) The instant accident by the Defendant is located on the two-lanes where the Plaintiff Oralb driver is the left-hand turn.