2. The costs of appeal and the costs of appeal shall be considered in the trial.

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with B and C AB on the vehicle from which it was located (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”).

B. At around 07:40 on April 25, 201, B, while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle and going through the ewning line on the original intersection adjacent to the Dongbcheon Central Station located in the Dongbcheon-si, B neglected to perform the ewning line duty, and the part on the left-hand side of the Defendant’s D-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-Wed Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”) driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the right-hand side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On April 25, 2011, to May 16, 2011, the Defendant was hospitalized in the E-type department, and received hospitalized treatment under the name of “infection base, fluoral salt base,” etc., from the time of the instant accident, the Defendant was hospitalized in the E-type department, and subsequently received outpatient treatment in the above hospital and Franchisium, Gentsium, Harysium, etc.

From July 12, 2011 to December 17, 2014, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 13,856,260 in total as the Defendant’s medical expenses.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 2 through 6 evidence, Eul's 3 through 10 evidence (including partial number), the purport of whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a minor accident that is unlikely to inflict an injury on the Defendant, and the Defendant received medical treatment for the injury unrelated to the instant accident and received the payment from the Plaintiff, thereby making unjust enrichment corresponding thereto.

Therefore, the defendant should return the insurance money paid to the plaintiff as the medical treatment expenses KRW 13,856,260 and damages for delay.

B. In light of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is the location of the Defendant’s injury caused by the instant accident. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively considering each of the statements in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 8, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 11 (including partial numbers).