손해배상(기)
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 judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of some of the judgment below
Therefore, it is accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act as it is.
[Attachment] On March 8, 2014, the hospital of this case constitutes a medical care institution entitled to receive medical care benefit costs under the National Health Insurance Act. The Defendant claimed and received medical care benefit costs from the Plaintiff, an insurer, according to the medical treatment by the hospital of this case actually conducted against the patient who joined the hospital of this case. Therefore, the Defendant’s act does not constitute “the case where the Plaintiff received the insurance benefit costs by speed or other wrongful means.” Furthermore, the insured who received medical care at the hospital of this case, provided medical treatment at any medical institution, and the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff, should pay the same amount of medical care benefit costs as the Plaintiff paid to the hospital of this case. Furthermore, around April 2014, around 1,875,774,360 won, including the medical care benefit costs paid to the Association of this case, which was the formal founder of the hospital of this case. Accordingly, the Defendant’s decision to recover the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement of unjust enrichment from the Association of this case, the Plaintiff’s claim for restitution of unjust enrichment from the Association of this case.
of this title.
Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff sustained any loss from paying the medical care benefit costs to the instant hospital.
The plaintiff is liable for damages to the defendant even if it is acknowledged that the defendant is liable for damages from the prosecutor around January 8, 2014 to the charge of violation of the Medical Service Act.