부당이득반환
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion lies in minor traffic accidents that conflict between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, at around August 5, 2015, between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s vehicle, as the Plaintiff’s driver of the vehicle C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and D, the Defendant’s spouse, as the driver of the vehicle E (hereinafter “Defendant”). On August 5, 2015, the Plaintiff requested for personal compensation treatment with the Defendant, who was on the part of the Defendant’s vehicle through an insurance receipt on the Do.
After that, there was an accident that D dies due to suicide, and Dongbu Fire, the insurance company of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, recognized the causal relationship between the instant traffic accident and the death of D, and paid the death insurance to the Defendant.
However, in light of the circumstances of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s negligence is not recognized, and there is no causal relationship between the instant accident and the death of D. Therefore, the Defendant should return KRW 22,325,870 of the insurance money received from the same fire, which is the insurance company of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, in relation to the instant accident, to the same fire as unjust enrichment.
2. First of all, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff had a legal title to claim against the Defendant for the return of the insurance proceeds received by the Defendant to the same fire caused by the instant accident on behalf of the Defendant, which is an insurance company of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.
In addition, even if the Plaintiff’s claim in this case may harm the Plaintiff’s claim by claiming direct compensation for the amount equivalent to the Plaintiff’s damages arising from the instant accident and the payment of insurance proceeds of the same kind and fire, as the Plaintiff himself/herself is, the Plaintiff is the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the Plaintiff’s owner of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Plaintiff’s consolidated automobile insurance contract are F, not the Plaintiff himself/herself, and thus, the Plaintiff’s father is the Plaintiff’s father.