부당이득금
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On July 23, 2010, A, an employee of MBE, who was an employee of the company MBE, suffered the injury of salt and tension by exceeding the strings while playing a stable at the company’s athletic competition.
B. From July 23, 2010 to September 28, 2010, “A” received medical treatment in Korea University’s affiliated medical institutions and B, etc., and the Plaintiff paid KRW 462,470, excluding the personal expenses borne by A, out of the medical care benefits incurred.
C. The Defendant approved the industrial accident of September 3, 2010 to A. D.
On August 12, 2013, the Plaintiff rejected the claim for the payment of the charges against the Defendant, and the Defendant rejected the payment of KRW 22,840, which corresponds to the medical treatment period from July 23, 2010 to August 11, 2010, on the ground that the extinctive prescription has already expired, and paid the remainder to the Plaintiff only KRW 239,630,00.
[Ground] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant obtained a benefit from removing liability within the scope of the plaintiff's medical care benefit without any legal ground, and the plaintiff suffered a loss equivalent to the same amount, so the plaintiff's right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment under Article 741 of the Civil Act is recognized, and the extinctive prescription is ten years, so the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the charge 22,840 won and the delay damages.
Even if a claim for settlement of accounts under Article 90(1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 11141, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter “Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act”) is filed, the starting point of starting extinctive prescription is the time when the Defendant approves the industrial accident. Therefore, the three-year extinctive prescription has not yet expired.
B. A claim filed by the Plaintiff based on the summary of the Defendant’s assertion is a claim for the settlement of accounts under Article 90(1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Act, which is three years pursuant to Article 112(1)5 of the same Act.