1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded each indemnity medical insurance contract with C and 53 insured workers, and the Defendant is a physician who operates a D Hospital.

The defendant administered the scram Mad's Madle Madle Madle Madle Madle Madle Madle Madle Madle 26,614,168 won in total for medical expenses, and the plaintiff paid insurance money equivalent to the above medical expenses to the above insured.

B. Non-explosive and non-explosive and non-explosive and non-explosive techniques are limited to those used within the scope of permission “the reduction of the pain of patients with chronic pains which are not managed by the existing pains.” The Non-explosive and non-explosive and non-explosive and non-explosive pain signals conducted by the Defendant to the insured who are difficult to be regarded as patients with chronic pains, cancer pains and dyslexic pains, constitute voluntary non-explosive and non-explosive and non-explosive pains treatment. The procedure beyond the scope of the target of use under the National Health Insurance Act and the National Health Insurance Act do not constitute a voluntary non-explosive and non-explosive in violation of the mandatory laws and thus, the Defendant is obligated to return the amount equivalent to the above medical expenses to the insured subject to the non-explosive and non-expl

Meanwhile, according to each indemnity medical insurance contract that the Plaintiff entered into with the insured, since the medical expenses for voluntary payment of benefits are not subject to the payment of insurance proceeds, the insured is obligated to return the amount equivalent to the above insurance amount received to the Plaintiff

C. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, who subrogated the insured, an unjust enrichment of KRW 26,614,168 and delay damages therefor.

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s exercise of the claim for return of unjust enrichment against the insured by subrogation of the insured as the right to preserve the unjust enrichment against the Defendant is against the Plaintiff’s insured.