1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion argues that the Defendants did not fully provide home care benefits (to long-term care, visit bathing, etc.) to beneficiaries of long-term care and lent their respective names so that Defendant E can receive money from the National Health Insurance Corporation. As such, the Defendants’ respective money as stated in the purport of the claim that the Defendants received from the Plaintiff’s name of benefit is unjust enrichment obtained without any legal ground, and thus, should be returned to the Plaintiff that suffered loss equivalent to the same amount.

2. On the other hand, the system imposes the duty of return on the benefiting party on the basis of the ideology of fairness and justice in a case where the benefiting party’s property gains lack the legal cause. In a case where there is a change in a certain property value among certain parties, which seems to be justifiable in general and form, and where the change in property value among them is contrary to the idea of fairness other than that of the law from a relative and substantive point of view, it is intended to resolve such inconsistency by ordering the acquisitor of property value to return its value.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2014Da5531 Decided June 25, 2015). Therefore, the issue of whether “legal cause” among the elements for establishing unjust enrichment belongs to the normative judgment area based on the principle of fairness, and thus, the determination ought to be reasonably made in consideration of various circumstances, such as the nature of the act of payment or the responsibility and duty of the person who incurred the payment, etc.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da218068, Jan. 14, 2016). The health care unit returned to the instant case, and the Plaintiff paid the Defendants the same amount of money as stated in the purport of the claim, and even if the Defendants suffered considerable damages and benefits therefrom, they are not interested in the dispute between the parties, and each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 1 and No. 555, Mar. 1, 201.