부당이득금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.
1. The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by combining the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 5.
A Decision 1) A’s occupational accident and Defendant’s medical care benefits is an employee of the snow rain Construction Corporation, who was engaged in the work of piling up stones at the construction site on May 7, 2010, and suffered injury to the left-hand side, the left-hand side of the fall-off, the fall-off and the fall-off and the fall-off. 2) A was treated by the medical care institution, such as B from May 7, 2010 to July 5, 2010, and the Defendant decided on July 8, 2010 as to medical care benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “decision on approval for additional medical care”).
B. C’s occupational accident and Defendant’s decision on approving additional medical care 1) on February 4, 2010, while D’s business establishment located in Dongdaemun-gu E E E located in Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, the business owner of which suffered injury, such as an open room for fingers, without damage to saws. 2) C received medical treatment from G hospital, etc.’s medical care institution from February 4, 2010 to March 4, 2010, and the Defendant rendered a decision on approving additional medical care with respect to C on January 29, 2013.
C. The Plaintiff filed a claim for the payment of medical care benefits and settlement of accounts with the health insurance from February 18, 2010 to September 7, 2010, the Plaintiff paid KRW 825,450 in total, and KRW 1,367,430 in total, and KRW 1,367,430 in total, which were incurred from the above medical care in relation to A, to the health care institution. (2) On June 21, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the payment of the settlement amount equivalent to KRW 825,450 in the above medical care benefit cost to A, but the Defendant paid only KRW 5,640 in total on June 26, 2013.
3. On June 26, 2013, the Plaintiff claimed the Defendant to pay the settlement amount equivalent to KRW 1,367,430 of the above medical care benefit cost as to C, but the Defendant did not comply with the claim on the ground that the extinctive prescription has expired.
2. Determination
(a) Determination on the cause of the claim;