1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. In the year 2016, the Plaintiff, a company running an insurance business, concluded an indemnity medical expenses insurance contract with the content that the amount of the medical expenses would be paid in the event that the insured was hospitalized in the sick’s hospital and received treatment as the insured for each of the insured parties (hereinafter “C, etc.”).

Under the National Health Insurance Act, each insurance contract of this case sets the amount of non-benefit determined by the Minister of Health and Welfare, which is excluded from the beneficiary of health care benefit.

B. The Defendant is a doctor who opened and is operating the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Medical Care Institution under the National Health Insurance Act.

C. C et al., hospitalized in Ganbu in 2017, received treatment expenses from the Defendant after being hospitalized in the Ganbu, and subsequently paid medical expenses to the Defendant. Of them, the Plaintiff filed a claim for insurance money under each insurance contract regarding the price for the multi-point artificial insemination and the inspection expenses, and received KRW 3,260,000,5,160,000,4,660,000, respectively.

[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 3 through 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(2) Each entry and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion selectively provides the Defendant with a claim for damages or a claim for return of unjust enrichment by subrogation of creditor. The gist of the assertion is as follows.

(1) When the price for multi-point artificial insemination in the first place, which was subject to the guarantee of lost medical expenses insurance, was previously excluded from the subject of guarantee due to the revision of the terms and conditions of the insurer, the Defendant issued a false receipt for medical expenses with a content that reduces the price for multi-point artificial insemination to C, etc. and increases the inspection cost subject to the guarantee of lost medical expenses insurance instead, and had C, etc. receive insurance money from the Plaintiff.