A. The Plaintiff provided medical treatment to D, E, etc. (hereinafter “D, etc.”) to a person who operates a hospital in its trade name, and the Defendant is a person who entered into an insurance contract with D, etc.

B. On June 24, 2019, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming unjust enrichment against the Plaintiff by subrogation of D, etc. on the ground that he/she could not claim insurance money from the insured at will, but the Defendant paid it to D, etc. on the ground that he/she paid the insurance money. On July 19, 2019, “the Plaintiff would pay KRW 2,720,000 to the Defendant and delay damages therefrom” (hereinafter “instant performance recommendation decision”), which was finalized on August 7, 2019.

(hereinafter referred to as "related case"). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In a case where a creditor’s right to a debtor to be preserved by subrogation is a monetary claim in the event that the creditor’s right to the debtor is a monetary claim in subrogation of the debtor, namely, the necessity of preserving the creditor’s right, in principle, the creditor may exercise his/her right to the third debtor on behalf of the debtor only when the debtor is insolvent (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da76556, Feb. 26, 2009). However, the creditor may exercise his/her right on behalf of the debtor, barring special circumstances, such as where the creditor’s right to preserve is closely related and the creditor’s right to exercise on behalf of the debtor’s right is closely related and where the creditor’s right cannot obtain the complete satisfaction of his/her claim unless he/she exercises his/her right by subrogation of the debtor’s right.

Supreme Court on December 2014