부당이득금
The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s KRW 1,214,00,003 against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its objection from November 2, 2013 to September 22, 2017.
On August 29, 2011, B recognized the liability for damages, driving C vehicles (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs”) around 17:30 on August 29, 201, and driving them into the Seojin-gu Middle School, Seojin-gu, Seojin-gu, Seoul, had been walking on the road, and the Defendant’s left part of the Defendant’s left part of the road was shocked with the front right part of the said vehicle, and suffered injury, such as salvine salvine, to the Defendant.
(A) Nos. 10 and 11, and the foregoing accident (hereinafter “instant accident”). The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s vehicle.
According to the facts of recognition as above, the plaintiff is liable for the damages suffered by the defendant due to the accident of this case as the insurer of the plaintiff vehicle.
However, pedestrians should pass along the roadsides in the direction opposite to vehicles and horses on the road that is not divided into sidewalks and roadways (Article 8(2) of the Road Traffic Act). However, considering the fact that the Defendant passed the same direction as the direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident (Article 11, No. 12-1, No. 12-2, No. 3 of the Road Traffic Act), pedestrians are limited to 95% of the Plaintiff’s liability.
In addition to the matters stated separately below the scope of liability for damages, the attached sheet of liability calculation shall be as follows.
A period for the convenience of calculation shall be calculated on a monthly basis.
The current price calculation at the time of the accident shall be based on the discount method that deducts interim interest calculated at the rate of 5/12 per month.
The details of king medical expenses incurred by the defendant's accident of this case are as shown in attached Form 1.
[6,447,070 won (Evidence B No. 9) alleged that the Defendant paid the medicine cost was due to the instant accident, and was excluded from this case’s accident. However, it is unclear whether the content of the treatment related to the king treatment is the left-hand part of the spine, and it was recognized that the salt of the left-hand part of the first diagnosis was sufficient for about three weeks’ treatment (Evidence A 2); and