more cases damage insurance Co., Ltd. (Seoul High LLC et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant

July 12, 2017

1. It is confirmed that there is no obligation of the Plaintiff to pay insurance money to the Defendant with respect to an accident listed in the attached Table 1.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 59,249,670 won with 5% interest per annum from November 25, 2015 to August 23, 2017, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

4. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

5. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

Order 1 Paragraph (1) and the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 59,881,050 won and the amount calculated by the ratio of 5% per annum from October 30, 2015 to the service date of a duplicate of the application for change of claim and cause of claim in this case, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to (motor vehicle number 1 omitted) vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”). The Defendant is the driver of (motor vehicle number 2 omitted) taxi (hereinafter “Defendant taxi”).

B. On May 3, 2013, Nonparty 1 driven the Plaintiff’s 13:40 on May 3, 2013, and brought two lanes on the two-lane road in front of the Jungcheon-dong, Jungcheon-gu, Jungcheon-gu, Daejeon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant accident”). During driving in the direction of cultural development along the flow of flow distance, Nonparty 1: (a) shocker of Defendant taxi, which was stopped for passengers getting off the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. The Plaintiff’s vehicle was not repaired due to the instant accident, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 500,00 to the Defendant at the repair cost of the Defendant taxi, and Nonparty 2, who was on board the Defendant taxi, was fine for himself without claiming a separate damages to Nonparty 1, and left the scene of the instant accident, and did not claim a separate damages against the Plaintiff or Nonparty 1 even thereafter.

D. The Plaintiff paid KRW 59,881,050 in total to the Defendant for medical expenses incurred in the instant accident from June 17, 2013 to October 29, 2015, as indicated in attached Table 2 “the details of the payment of medical expenses”.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the instant accident is extremely minor, the Defendant’s injury or the Defendant’s king was not aggravated due to the instant accident. The symptoms revealed to the Defendant following the instant accident are revealed due to the complex perjury (CRPS) or other factors that the Defendant suffered from the previous traffic accident regardless of the instant accident. Therefore, the Plaintiff was not liable to pay insurance money to the Defendant regarding the instant accident, and the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff delayed payment damages from October 30, 2015, the following day after the date of the final payment of medical expenses.

B. Defendant’s assertion

The shock caused by the instant accident was reasonable, and the location of the area of the area receiver who was inserted into the Defendant’s body was changed, and the Defendant was subject to the location adjustment of the area of the area receiver. Since the location of the area was not fixed, the Defendant received the area receiver and the replacement of the area. In addition, the Defendant received the area of the area receiver and the replacement of the area due to additional pains on the part, such as the chest, etc., and the left side, and continued to undergo the treatment of the instant accident. Accordingly, the Defendant sustained damages other than the above treatment expenses paid by the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) On April 30, 200, Nonparty 3 driven a car at around 11:20 (vehicle No. 3 omitted) on April 30, 200, followed the Defendant’s car driving which was parked in the order of signal while driving the car at the Gu Daejeon World War. (hereinafter “instant previous accident”).

2) At the time of the instant previous accident, the Defendant: (a) around April 6, 2001, the Hand Hand booms, which was boomed by a spathn, with a spathn, and the fluent fluent fluent fluent fluent fluoring on the right side; (b) around June 1, 2001, the bluent fluent fluent fluoring of the part of the bluoral bluent blus, which was bluent with a bluent hand at the time of the instant previous accident; and (c) around July 2001, the Defendant agreed that the Dongbu Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Dongbu”) (hereinafter referred to as the “Flue fluor flu”) was the insurer of the car number 3 omitted to Daejeon District Court against the Defendant’s fire, on the premise that the Defendant’s fluent fluent fluent flu.

3) However, even after the Defendant continued to perform the symptoms of the ○○○○○ Hospital, the Defendant was hospitalized in the above hospital on July 2, 2006, and confirmed that the multiple componary componary componary componary componary componary comp on October 28, 2006, the combined componary componary componary componary componary componary componary componary componary was expanded. On July 18, 2008, the Defendant received additional componary componary componary componary comonary componary componary componary componary componary

4) On February 17, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007Kadan413781 (i) that “Dongbu Fire shall pay to the Defendant 117,618,510 won and interest thereon at the rate of 5% per annum from October 29, 2009 to February 17, 2010, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment,” which became final and conclusive around that time.

5) Even thereafter, the Defendant continued to receive pain treatment, such as booming spathic and anesthesia injection, etc., on the right upper and both sides. On March 6, 2012, the Defendant received surgery on the part of the Defendant on the ground that the cater of the cirrosis inserted to the Defendant was cut off, and that the cirrosis was replaced by the cirrosis.

6) On May 3, 2013, 2013, the date of the instant accident, the Defendant received from the ○○○○ Hospital the echopathic procedure echopathic surgery and anesthesia medication. On May 4, 2013, the following day, the Defendant appealed from the △△△△△△△△△△ Hospital to the right low forests, etc., and undergone a CT inspection. On the same day, the Defendant appealed from the emergency room of the ○○○○○ Hospital to the left-hand level, and was treated as mecopic surgery, etc.

7) On May 5, 2013, the Defendant complained of pains that are not sold on the left-hand side, and was hospitalized in ○○○○○ Hospital and received pain treatment. As a result of the examination on the Defendant, it was confirmed that the location of the drid line, inserted in the Defendant, was changed in the location of the drid line, thereby failing to conduct pain control. On May 20, 2013, the Defendant received the said drid line location control method (hereinafter “instant drid position control method”). The Defendant said that the drid position was reduced from May 21, 2013, and the Defendant discharged from ○○ Hospital on the symptoms of May 31, 2013.

8) Even on June 9, 2013 and July 2013, the Defendant continued running to the ○○○ Hospital, and received pain treatment, such as psychotropic procedures, anesthesia surgery, and anesthesia surgery. On July 2, 2013, the Defendant confirmed the difference between the result of the examination on May 23, 2013 and the result of the examination on June 25, 2013, the Defendant confirmed the difference in the location of the ○○○○ Hospital’s emercatoric emeric emeric emeric emeric emerc emeric emeric emerc emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emerc emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric e.

9) On July 24, 2013, the Defendant re-hospitalized the Defendant at ○○○ Hospital for the purpose of controlling pains, as it does not have the scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopics.

10) On August 9, 2013, the Defendant complained of the pain that it began from the right body and spreads into the arms. On August 13, 2013, the Defendant complained of the pain that the pain was not easy to move to the body body, and continued to receive pain treatment on October 22, 2013. The Defendant was discharged from the hospital on October 22, 2013. Thereafter, the Defendant repeated hospital treatment and outpatient treatment and continued to receive pain treatment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 13 through 15, and 24 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination on the claim for confirmation of non-existence of debt

1) First, we examine whether there exists a proximate causal relationship between the instant accident and the Defendant’s change in the location of the har line between the instant accident and the Defendant’s change in location.

In the instant accident, the Plaintiff did not obtain a separate repair and paid KRW 500,000 to the Defendant taxi repair cost, and Nonparty 2 of the Defendant taxi was punished and left the scene of the instant accident without claiming a separate compensation for damages as seen earlier. According to the video of the evidence No. 3, the Defendant taxi was able to recognize the fact that the Defendant taxi was protruding after the instant accident, which was the shock part of the instant accident, and was damaged by the backer of the Defendant taxi, on the photograph immediately after the instant accident was taken, and the data damaged by the Defendant taxi cannot be found. In light of this, the degree of shock caused by the instant accident is insignificant.

However, as a result of the fact-finding on the ○○○ Hospital, the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the results of the physical appraisal commission to the head of the Macheon-do University, the results of fact-finding, and the overall purport of the arguments, are commonly occurring, and the movement of the Made-rayer is likely to account for 13.2% of the problems arising from the Made-rayer, and even if the external shock strength is weak, the transfer of the Made-ray may occur. The defendant continued before the accident in this case, even before the accident in this case, continued to receive the ○○○○○ Hospital and received the Made-ray treatment. The defendant was hospitalized immediately in the emergency room of the ○○○○○ Hospital, leading to the aggravation of the Made-rayer Hospital, and the defendant was hospitalized on May 20, 2013 after being hospitalized, and it is reasonable to view that the Made-rayer’s location and the Made-ray was 13.

2) Next, we examine whether there is a proximate causal link between the instant accident and the symptoms revealed after the Defendant discharged on May 31, 2013.

As seen earlier, the Defendant discharged on May 31, 2013, on the following day after receiving the instant post-ray position control method on May 20, 2013, on the ground that the instant post-line position control method had a high pain, and that the symptoms have not deteriorated until the Defendant complained of the pain on July 2, 2013, and there was no special difference between the symptoms before the instant accident and the symptoms before the instant accident. Since then, it was confirmed that the Defendant’s post-ray location control method of the instant post-line location control method was not transmitted properly, and the Defendant received the instant post-ray change on August 1, 2013. In light of the foregoing, it is difficult for the Defendant to find that there was no possibility that the instant post-ray location control method was recovered before and after the instant accident, and that there was no possibility of decrease in the likelihood of the instant post-ray change or one of the causes of decrease in the number of passengers after the instant post-ray location control method, regardless of the possibility of decrease in the number of passengers.

Furthermore, in light of the following circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the results of the physical examination entrusted to the head of the Macheon-do University Hospital and the purport of the entire pleadings in the above facts, it is doubtful whether the degree of shock caused by the instant accident may be deemed as not having occurred, and that the Defendant had already experienced multiple compactacy symptoms for a long time due to the instant previous accident, and the appraisal of the instant case seems to have expanded the pains of the parts, such as the Defendant’s chest and the chest, etc. after the instant accident. However, in light of the following, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant’s multiple compactasis caused by the instant previous accident was expanded or added due to the instant accident.

Therefore, it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relationship between the instant accident and the symptoms revealed after the Defendant discharged on May 31, 2013.

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Defendant medical expenses from the date of the instant accident to May 31, 2013 due to the damages incurred by the instant accident. In full view of the purport of the entries and the entire pleadings in the evidence No. 6, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff paid 502,320 won of the medical expenses of ○○○○ Hospital from May 4, 2013 to May 31, 2013 and 129,060 won of the medical expenses of △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, the Plaintiff’s insurance payment obligation against the Defendant in the instant accident does not exist, and as the Defendant is disputing, there is a benefit to seek its confirmation.

C. Determination on the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment

1) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff paid 59,881,050 won to the Defendant for medical expenses. Among them, from May 4, 2013 to May 31, 2013, the damages equivalent to KRW 502,320 for the medical expenses of ○○○ Hospital from May 4, 2013, and KRW 129,060 for the medical expenses of △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ on May 4, 2013, have a proximate causal relation with the instant accident. The remainder of KRW 59,249,670 (= 59,81,050 - 502,320 - 129,060) is difficult to acknowledge a proximate causal relation with the instant accident. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to return the remainder of the medical expenses without any legal grounds to the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant has a duty to return them to the Plaintiff.

2) Furthermore, with respect to the claim for damages for delay, Article 748(2) of the Civil Act provides that a malicious beneficiary shall compensate for damages if he/she returns the interest received with interest added thereto, and Article 749(2) of the same Act provides that if a bona fide beneficiary loses the interest, he/she shall be deemed a malicious beneficiary from the time of filing the lawsuit. In such cases, the beneficiary shall prove that he/she is a bona fide beneficiary, and the “when filing a lawsuit” refers to the time when a copy of the complaint is served on the Defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da95325, Jan. 23, 2014).

In the instant lawsuit, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant is a malicious beneficiary, and the Plaintiff is obligated to pay damages for delay from November 25, 2015, which is regarded as a malicious beneficiary, to the Plaintiff, since the duplicate of the claim and the application for modification of the cause of the claim, as of November 24, 2015, which amended the purport of the claim, was served on the Defendant on November 25, 2015.

3) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 59,249,670 won as above and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from November 25, 2015 to August 23, 2017, which is the date of the instant judgment, and the date of full payment from the following day to the date of full payment, to the date of the instant judgment, to the Plaintiff at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges fixed-type