부당이득금
1. The judgment of the first instance, including the claim of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) expanded by this court, shall be modified as follows.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition as follows.
2. Parts to be removed or added;
A. Based on the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance consisting of sub-paragraphs 1-b and 4 as follows, and adding "Evidence 17, 20, 21" to the grounds for the recognition of the model.
B. On April 4, 2012, Nonparty D driving a low-speed vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) around 16:55 on April 4, 2012, and driving the vehicle on the street in front of the Agricultural Cooperative Federation, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju, and collisioned the Embenz vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) behind the Defendant’s driving while driving the vehicle on the street.
(hereinafter “instant accident.” The Defendant’s vehicle was somewhat shocked at the time of the instant accident, and there was damage that was divided into the number plate structure of the Plaintiff’s vehicle into the rear pandeer of the Defendant’s vehicle, but there was almost no alteration or damage to the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle.
On August 31, 2015, the Plaintiff paid 6,300,000 won to the Defendant with disability insurance money under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act. From April 5, 2012 to September 2, 2015, the Plaintiff paid the injury insurance amount of KRW 12,556,120 in total for the expenses for treatment by the Defendant claiming the escape certificate of the protruding-in signboards for which he/she had been treated.
B. The ground for appeal No. 2-A of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows.
Although the accident of this case is minor, the defendant claimed the escape certificate of post-explosion, and has been treated for not less than three years, and the defendant received 6,300,000 won of the post-explosion disability insurance and 12,556,120 won of the injury insurance.
However, the defendant's protruding escape certificate is not caused by the accident of this case, but caused by the defendant's king evidence.
Therefore, without any legal cause, the defendant is 6,300,000 won and 6,300 won of disability insurance money.