beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.08.20 2018가단5117992

부당이득금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 3,365,00 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from May 9, 2018 to August 20, 2018.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant, along with the Defendant’s mother who served as the Plaintiff’s insurance solicitor, conspired to obtain insurance proceeds by means of being hospitalized at the hospital and submitting a written confirmation of hospitalization to the insurance company, even though the Defendant did not need hospital treatment after having subscribed to various insurance companies, including the Plaintiff, in the name

B. On January 5, 2004, the Defendant hospitalized the D Hospital located in G in G in Fapo City on the grounds of alcohol liver, and inter-regional infection, and discharged the hospital on January 19, 200, and hospitalized the hospital for a total of 15 days.

However, in fact, the symptoms were insignificant and there was no need for hospitalized treatment, and there was no actual hospitalized treatment such as there was no active record during the period of hospitalization.

Nevertheless, B claimed insurance money from the Plaintiff as if the Defendant had been hospitalized as above and received KRW 2,040,000 on April 1, 2004, and thereafter, from that time, received total of KRW 35,080,000 from the Plaintiff, as stated in the “crime List” column of “The Status of Unfair Claim and Receipt Insurance Money” in attached Form A until July 30, 2009.

C. On April 7, 2010, the Defendant was convicted of the facts constituting the crime that the Defendant acquired insurance money from the insurance company, including the above insurance money received from the Plaintiff, from the Plaintiff, etc., and the above judgment was finalized on April 15, 2010.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim, since the insurance money that the defendant received from the plaintiff was unjust enrichment without any legal ground, the defendant is obligated to return it to the plaintiff.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that the part of the insurance money corresponding to the normal period of time except for unauthorized outing days during the admission period cannot be viewed as unjust enrichment.

There are reasons for receiving insurance proceeds.