1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The circumstances surrounding the instant accident are as follows.

At the time of the accident, the insured vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) of the Plaintiff insured vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) C at the time of the accident and the insured vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) : (a) 134 as an volcanic as of September 12, 2018 at the time of the accident, at around 15:30 on September 15:30, 2018; and (b) the vehicle in front of the Nocheon Urban Bus Terminal was straighted three-lanes from the four-lanes to the E Hospital room at the Immigration Control Office in accordance with the straight line in the vicinity of the above location; (c) in conflict with the Defendant vehicle at the first lane of the opposite side of the road to the right-hand part of the Plaintiff vehicle and the part of the front right-hand part of the Defendant vehicle are damaged. The amount of insurance proceeds paid in KRW 1,212,450 in front of the Defendant vehicle.

B. On December 17, 2018, upon the Defendant’s request, the committee for deliberation on the dispute over reimbursement of automobile insurance (hereinafter “Deliberation Committee”) decided to pay KRW 242,490 (20% of the total amount paid by the Defendant) to the Defendant on the ground that the ratio of the negligence between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s vehicle was 20:80, and that the Plaintiff would pay the Defendant KRW 242,490 (20% of the total amount paid by the Defendant) (hereinafter “instant decision”).

C. On December 20, 2018, the Plaintiff paid 303,090 won (i.e., 1,515,450 won (=1,515,450 won x 20%) equivalent to 20% of the Defendant’s insurance payment amount of KRW 1,212,450 (i.e., the Defendant’s insurance payment of KRW 1,212,450) to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 5 evidence, Gap 1 to 3 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The location where the instant accident occurred;

A. The plaintiff asserted that the accident in this case occurred from the unilateral negligence of the defendant's vehicle, which had been significantly negligent in performing his duty of care while conducting a non-protection team. Thus, 303,090 won of the indemnity paid to the defendant according to the ratio of negligence set forth in the decision in this case was unjust enrichment without any legal cause, and thus, the plaintiff is obligated to return it to the plaintiff