logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.12.05 2018나30046
부당이득금반환
Text

1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid under the following paragraph (2) shall be revoked.

2.

Reasons

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance (1. acknowledged facts). Thus, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the parties’ assertion (i) The Defendant concluded an insurance contract with the Plaintiff and received the insurance money from the Plaintiff on July 2, 2007 to July 19, 2007, for 18 days, after receiving the diagnosis of urine from the F Hospital located in Sinpoe E from July 2, 2007, and received the diagnosis for 25 days from July 20, 2007 to August 13, 2007, after receiving the hospital treatment for 43 days due to urology from the G Hospital located in Sinpoenamnam-gun to the Plaintiff, and received the above urology treatment for 40 days on August 17, 2007, claiming for the payment of the insurance money, and then, the Defendant received the total amount of the insurance money from the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff on September 20, 207, including the amount of the insurance money received from the Plaintiff on September 16, 2007, and then received it from the Plaintiff [Attachment 1060 to 19 billion won].

The above fraud by the defendant constitutes a tort under Article 750 of the Civil Code, and the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the above 79,990,000 won and damages for delay obtained by the plaintiff as compensation for damages.

In addition, by deceiving the plaintiff as above and deceiving the insurance proceeds of 79,990,000 won in total from the plaintiff, the defendant gains 79,990,000 won, which is the amount equivalent to the above insurance proceeds without any legal ground, and thereby, the plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to the same amount. Thus, the defendant is selected to return unjust enrichment to the plaintiff, which is equivalent to the above insurance proceeds of 79,990,000 won.

arrow