logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.12.05 2018가단5124099
부당이득금
Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B: (a) KRW 21,970,000, as well as 5% per annum from September 11, 2015 to September 13, 2018; (b)

Reasons

Unless there are special circumstances where it is difficult to adopt a judgment of facts in a criminal trial in light of other evidence submitted in the civil trial, it cannot be acknowledged that the facts that the criminal court already became guilty of the same facts are material evidence, even though it is not bound by the fact-finding of the criminal trial.

(2) On September 30, 1997, Defendant B filed a claim for insurance money under the same method by deceiving the Plaintiff, and filed a claim for insurance money under the name of the heart of death in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, for the purpose of deceiving the insurance money, but the fact that Defendant B purchased the insurance products of multiple insurance companies including the Plaintiff for the purpose of receiving the insurance money. Despite the necessity of hospitalization, the necessity of hospitalization, the period of hospitalization, the medical certificate issued by the hospital, and the certificate of hospitalization, and the fact that the insurance money is paid to the Plaintiff by repeatedly using the insurance company’s terms and conditions that it is possible to receive the insurance money without any need for hospital treatment. The Plaintiff filed a claim for insurance money under the condition that the Plaintiff delivered KRW 22,970,000 to Defendant B as shown in Table 1 attached hereto, and the Plaintiff also filed a claim for insurance money under the same method, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 25,380,000 as indicated in attached Table 2, which became final and conclusive as to each of the above Defendants’ respective criminal acts of fraud.

The plaintiff sought a return of unjust enrichment on each of the above payments on the premise that the contract was revoked with the defendants on the ground of the above fraud. According to the facts of each of the above recognition, the defendant B is the plaintiff in the above payment.

arrow