logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원영동지원 2019.11.01 2019가단547
채무부존재확인
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. B around 20:00 on October 19, 2018, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff playing in the house of Cheongju-si C building and the house of the outer urine in subparagraph (D) were diagnosed by the framework of the lower part of the obscure aggregate at the hospital operated by the medical corporation via the F hospital operated by the medical corporation, and was hospitalized in the hospital.

B. On November 23, 2018, the Defendant paid KRW 3,516,980, out of the total medical expenses at the hospital of Chungcheong University, 3,731,680, as medical care benefit costs, to the hospital of Chungcheong University.

C. On March 25, 2019, the Defendant, pursuant to Article 58(1) of the National Health Insurance Act and Article 750 of the Civil Act, rendered a decision to recover the above KRW 3,516,980 from the Plaintiff as the amount of indemnity (hereinafter “the amount of indemnity in this case”) to the effect that the above injury suffered by the Plaintiff is deemed an accident caused by the Plaintiff’s intentional act (the number of decision: 20193-21-000, the date of decision: March 25, 2019).

The Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the payment of the instant amount of indemnity around April 9, 2019.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Entry of Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant’s assertion B was caused by the harmful act that was held by the Plaintiff as a t lease (hereinafter “the harmful act of this case”), and suffered from the injury on the right part of the blue part in the process, and the Defendant provided insurance benefits by paying KRW 3,516,980 to the Chungcheong University Hospital due to the Plaintiff’s harmful act of this case.

Since the defendant has the right to claim compensation against the plaintiff who has inflicted injury on B due to the harmful act of this case, the defendant's claim for compensation of this case against the plaintiff exists.

B. The plaintiff alleged that B had not committed the instant harmful act, and B attempted to move to the same while playing at the end of the t lease. However, B was suffering from the injury due to vaddi by itself, while vaddi was fright.

arrow