beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.02.03 2015나16421

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to B vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicles”). The Defendant is the driver of the following vehicle C at the time of the following accident (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. D, around 09:55 on June 25, 2014, when driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle and entering the said intersection from the two-lanes of the entrance distance prior to the entry of the members of the Gowon-gu, Sungnam-si, and turn to the left, caused an accident of shocking the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was directly located on the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle from the one side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle prior to the entry into the said intersection, to the right side of the other party, to the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On June 27, 2014 to July 9, 2014, immediately after the instant accident, the Defendant was hospitalized in the Ethical hospital due to salt, tensions, and tensions, etc., and received medical treatment at the F Hospital on July 9, 2014.

By September 5, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 996,40,00 as insurance money, including hospital treatment expenses to E, KRW 912,850, and KRW 83,550 as hospital treatment expenses to F Hospital.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4 (including each number), Eul evidence 1 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant suffered injury although he did not suffer injury due to the accident of this case, and claimed insurance money, and received KRW 1,073,720 for medical expenses such as hospital treatment expenses from the plaintiff and incurred losses equivalent to the same amount, and thus, the above insurance money is obligated to return it as unjust enrichment.

3. According to the statement No. 3, the accident of this case is that the driver of the plaintiff vehicle attempt to turn to the left slowly within the intersection.

The right side of the Defendant vehicle, which was on its left side, is shocked.