보험금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows: (a) by adding “(1) through (6)” between the first instance court’s 4, 15, and 16; and (b) by adding “the result of the commission of the appraisal of the medical records to the Korean Compensation Medical Association of the court of first instance” after “the result of the commission of the appraisal of the medical records to the head of the hospital of the court of first instance” in the fifth part of the fifth part; and (c) by citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the Defendant’s determination as to the assertion additionally made in the
2. Additional determination
A. The defendant received hospitalized treatment according to the decision of the doctor in charge of C Hospital, and the plaintiff also paid the insurance money for more than four years to the defendant, recognizing the necessity of hospitalization. Since this can be deemed to have agreed on the payment of the insurance money between the parties concerned, the claim for return of unjust enrichment is unjustifiable, unless the above agreement is null and void or void, but it is difficult to view that the plaintiff has agreed on the payment of the insurance money to the defendant in a conclusive manner merely because the plaintiff paid the insurance money upon the defendant'
B. The defendant also did not have such agreement on domestic affairs.
Even if the plaintiff paid insurance money according to his judgment and sought return of unjust enrichment again is contrary to the good faith principle. However, in order to deny the exercise of the right on the ground that it is contrary to the good faith principle, he provided good faith to
In light of the concept of justice, the other party’s act of trust must be in a legitimate state, and the exercise of rights against such other party’s faith should reach an extent that is not acceptable in light of the concept of justice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da64552, Nov. 29, 2007).