1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's assertion is an insurer who has concluded each indemnity medical insurance contract with 391 insured persons, including C, and the defendant is a doctor who operates B hospital.

The Defendant performed a non-explosive influence signal method against the insured, and received a total of KRW 46,517,600 for medical expenses, and the Plaintiff paid the insured insurance money equivalent to the above medical expenses, such as the payment details of the attached insurance money.

Since the procedure of non-explosive and non-explosive traffic signal outside the scope of permission for use as prescribed by the National Health Insurance Act constitutes an illegal non-benefit in violation of the mandatory law, the defendant is obligated to return the amount equivalent to the above medical expenses to the insured who received the procedure of non-explosive and non-explosive traffic signal to the unjust enrichment.

Meanwhile, according to each indemnity medical insurance contract that the Plaintiff entered into with the insured, since the medical expenses for illegal non-payment are not subject to the payment of insurance money, the insured is obligated to return the amount equivalent to the above insurance money received to the Plaintiff as

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s exercise of the claim for return of unjust enrichment against the insured in subrogation of the insured as the preserved right is ① the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment against the insured and the Defendant’s claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant is closely related based on the same facts as the Plaintiff’s claim for illegal non-payment treatment and its medical expenses. ② If the Plaintiff individually files a claim for return of unjust enrichment against multiple insured workers, the collection of insurance proceeds may not be properly performed, whereas the exercise of the right by subrogation of the insured becomes an effective and appropriate means to ensure the actual performance of the claim, ③ the Plaintiff’s subrogation cannot be deemed as an unjust interference with the Plaintiff’s free property management act.