부당이득금반환
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as follows, and the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance except for addition. Thus, it is citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
[Supplementary records] On June 24, 2015, the part of the first instance court's judgment "157,580 won in total as the Defendant's hospital treatment costs on June 24, 2015" is "26,500 won in total as the Defendant's hospital treatment costs on June 24, 2015; the part of the second instance court's judgment " [based on recognition] is without dispute; the part of the second instance court's judgment " [based on recognition] is without dispute; Gap's 3, 4, Eul evidence, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers); the purport of the whole pleadings; the second instance court's "3,170 won in total as the Defendant's hospital treatment costs on June 24, 2015; 226,500 won in total as the Defendant's hospital treatment costs on December 18, 2015; and according to the overall purport of the first instance court's judgment "33,1750 won in each case's evidence No.
The proviso of Article 3(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act provides that the amount of damage inflicted on the victim falls short of the corresponding amount of medical fees calculated in accordance with the standards for medical fees covered by automobile accident insurance under Article 15(1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act shall be paid as a liability insurance amount within the scope of the amount prescribed in [Attachment 1]. The purport of the proviso of subparagraph 2 is to interpret that even in a case where the amount of damage calculated by deducting the amount equivalent to the ratio of negligence among the damage inflicted on the victim of the traffic accident falls short of the corresponding amount of medical expenses under the above provision, it shall be interpreted that the corresponding amount of medical expenses should be considered as the amount of damage and paid as the liability insurance amount for the victim of the traffic accident. Therefore, the victim of the traffic