beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 2014.08.05 2012가단70929

부당이득금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 28,552,090 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from September 7, 2012 to August 5, 2014.

Reasons

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as stated in Gap evidence 1 to 6 (including paper numbers) and Eul evidence 3-2:

The Plaintiff is an insurer who concluded an insurance contract with Nonparty B with respect to the C-winged Vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) owned by Nonparty B.

B. B, around 19:00 on February 19, 2010, driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and caused a contact accident leading to Defendant’s vehicle moving to the same direction while moving to the intersection near the home distance located in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On February 20, 2010, the Defendant was hospitalized in the E-mail department located in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant injury”) and was diagnosed on February 24, 2010 in the light-based base for the treatment of approximately three weeks (hereinafter “instant injury”), and received hospital treatment by March 26, 2010.

Meanwhile, after the instant accident, the Plaintiff paid KRW 37,239,700 as Defendant’s medical expenses and KRW 30,000 as Defendant’s provisional payment to H hospital, etc.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the injury of this case suffered by the defendant is caused by the king, and there is no causal link with the accident of this case, or even if the accident of this case was low, the defendant is obligated to return to the plaintiff the amount stated in the purport of the claim, out of KRW 37,239,700, which was already received as unjust enrichment.

On the other hand, the defendant suffered from the accident in this case where he was hospitalized for more than one month, and was hospitalized for more than one month due to the accident in this case, but the symptoms are not good, and eventually, he was towed by the escape certificate, and received outpatients from the hospital. Furthermore, prior to the accident in this case, the defendant did not receive treatment by the escape certificate of a conical signboard even once.