1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with C (hereinafter “Defendant”) with respect to B vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”).

B. On June 12, 2014, around 23:45, the driver of the Defendant vehicle driven in the direction of smooth village in the direction of the right side of the road, which was parked at the right side of the road, at the front Tri-distance Intersection located in D, Kim Jong-si, and then collision the right side side of the Plaintiff vehicle, which was parked at the right side of each corner, with the front side of the Defendant vehicle, and shocked the light rail that was parked on the front side of the Plaintiff vehicle in the direction of half ad

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

The Defendant paid KRW 2,500,000 to the Plaintiff for the repair cost of the said meteorite, etc., and then filed a petition for deliberation with the Plaintiff to the Deliberation Committee on the Claim for Compensation of Damages (hereinafter “Deliberation Committee”).

On October 17, 2016, the Deliberation Committee decided to deliberate and coordinate the ratio of negligence between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s vehicle to 1:9.

E. On November 7, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 250,000 (=2,500,000 x 10%) to the Defendant as damages according to the decision of deliberation and coordination by the Deliberation Committee.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 12 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the accident in this case was caused by the negligence of the defendant's driver who operated the defendant's vehicle in violation of the restricted speed in drinking, and there is no proximate causal relation with the parking of the plaintiff's vehicle. Thus, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is obligated to return 250,000 won paid to the defendant as unjust enrichment according to the erroneous decision of

B. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by each of the above evidence, the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle, while drinking, is proceeding at a speed exceeding 50 km at a speed exceeding 110 km, and the instant accident occurred.