1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with B and C vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”).

B. On April 11, 2016, B: (a) around 15:50 on April 11, 2016, the Defendant was parked while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the vicinity of Guro-gu Seoul, and accordingly, (b) caused the Defendant and the winners D to suffer injury.

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

On July 26, 2016, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to pay the agreed amount to the Defendant and D as KRW 4.5 million each due to the instant accident (hereinafter “instant agreed amount”). The Defendant requested to transfer the total amount of the agreed amount to its own deposit account, and the Plaintiff wired the agreed amount to D to the Defendant’s deposit account.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, barring special circumstances, such as that the Defendant was delegated by D to receive the instant agreed amount, the Defendant received the said agreed amount of KRW 4.5 million from the Plaintiff and took profits equivalent to the said agreed amount, and suffered losses to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff is obligated to return the above 4.5 million won to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. On the judgment of the defendant's assertion, the defendant asserts that D has a legitimate authority to hold the instant agreement, as it agreed that D bears excessive debts using the defendant's credit card during the marriage with the defendant, and repayment of the credit card fee with the instant agreement.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendant had the right to receive the agreed amount under subparagraph 1 by itself, and there is no other evidence to prove this otherwise, and rather, according to the above evidence on April 27, 2017, Seoul Family Court Decision 2017Du305276, Apr. 27, 2017.