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 a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a mutual aid agreement on the Plaintiff’s vehicle C (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”), and the Defendant is an insurer that entered into an automobile insurance contract on D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).

B. On August 9, 2019, at around 16:20, the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the parking zone of the E-House ground parking lot in Sungsung-si, into the passage behind the passage, and left the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s left back and stopped at the lower part of the lower part of the vehicle’s fire-only parking zone in the above passage.

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

The Defendant paid 462,900 won in total with the insurance money due to the repair cost of the Defendant’s vehicle, etc., and filed an application for deliberation and coordination of the instant accident with the F Deliberation Committee (hereinafter “Deliberation Committee”).

On September 2, 2019, the Deliberation Committee decided on September 2, 2019 that the ratio of responsibility between the plaintiff's vehicle and the defendant's vehicle shall be 60% large. D.

On September 4, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 277,740 to the Defendant according to the decision of the Deliberation Committee, and filed the instant lawsuit on September 5, 2019, within the objection period.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry or video of Gap evidence 1 to 7 (including branch numbers for those with a satisfy number) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that since the negligence ratio of the defendant vehicle reaches 80%, the defendant has a duty to return 185,160 won (=27,740 won - (462,90 won x 20%) and damages for delay to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the Plaintiff’s driver, who is the driver of the parking zone, has the duty of care to drive along the vehicle by checking the safety of the vehicle, such as whether the vehicle is driving along the parking zone. Nevertheless, the Defendant’s driver also has the duty of care to drive along the vehicle while neglecting the duty of care.