beta
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.08.16 2016가단218069

부당이득금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 27,760,708 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from April 12, 2016 to the date of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 23, 2010, the Plaintiff is an insurer that entered into an unlimited dividend insurance contract with the Defendant.

B. From April 4, 2011 to April 25, 2011, the Defendant received the hospital treatment expenses of KRW 27,760,708,00 from the Plaintiff as insurance money on the ground that the Defendant was hospitalized in B Hospital for 22 days as “the 22-day disability accompanying nephical disease,” and that the Plaintiff was hospitalized for 630,000 on May 20, 201 as insurance money, and that the Plaintiff was hospitalized for 548 days in total from around that time to March 29, 2014.

C. The Defendant was indicted as a crime of fraud and was sentenced to imprisonment with labor for one year on May 12, 2015, by the Gwangju District Court 2014Da41455, on the ground that the Defendant, even if he was not hospitalized for a long time, was a minor symptoms to the extent that it does not interfere with daily life, and was merely subject to adequate treatment due to outpatient treatment during the period of hospitalization, and received the insurance money from the Plaintiff, etc. as if he received adequate hospitalized treatment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff the sum total of KRW 27,760,708, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from April 12, 2016 to the day of full payment, as sought by the Plaintiff, from the day following the day of delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order to the day of full payment.

B. As to the judgment of the defendant's assertion, the defendant alleged to the effect that the patient's hospital treatment was appropriate, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.