부당이득반환
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) with KRW 708,057.
1. The reasons for this part of the underlying facts are as follows: “No. 289, Oct. 29, 2014” in Part 14 of the judgment of the court of first instance; “No. 2014. 29, Oct. 29, 2014”; “The Plaintiff, the insurer of the instant vehicle, claims insurance money” in Part 17 of Part 3; “The Defendant claimed insurance money against the Plaintiff, the insurer of the instant vehicle, and the Plaintiff, the insurer of the instant vehicle, claimed insurance money.” As such, this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance
2. Determination as to the principal lawsuit
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant filed a claim for medical expenses and received insurance proceeds equivalent to the amount of medical expenses from the Plaintiff by asserting that the Defendant suffered false injury although there was no injury as alleged by the Defendant, such as external stress disorder, due to the instant accident, etc., and the Defendant is obligated to return the insurance proceeds that the Defendant received unfairly from the Plaintiff to the unjust enrichment.
B. (1) The fact that the Defendant received KRW 71,580,325 in total from the Plaintiff in relation to the instant accident is as seen earlier. As such, we examine the existence of proximate causal relationship between the symptoms alleged by the Defendant and the instant accident and the Defendant’s damages therefrom by dividing them into a specialized department for the assessment of damages.
(A) cited portion: The defendant can be recognized as having received continuous medical treatment at I Hospital and J Hospital, etc. after the accident in this case, based on the symptoms such as spathn, telegraphic multiple spathn, and stress after external wound, etc., and the fact that the defendant seems to have no mental health pathology to the defendant prior to the accident in this case, in full view of the following facts: (a) the anesthesia pain department, mental health department, 3, 15, and 16 of the evidence Nos. 3-2, and the results of the physical examination commissioned to the Director of N Hospital in the court of first instance to the Director of N Hospital; and (b) the whole purport of the arguments in the inquiry.