In a case where: (a) Company A, an insurer of the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract, the insured of Party B, guaranteed Party B’s obligation to pay medical expenses to Party C for the medical expenses to Party C, and paid the medical expenses to Party C, the case holding that Party C had a duty to return unjust enrichment for Party C, on the ground that even if the above accident was caused by the bombing of the bomb, it is not deemed to be for treating the bomb; and (b) Company C had a duty to return unjust enrichment for Party C, on the ground that the performance of the bomburging of the bomb, was not for treating the bomb; and (c) Company C had been diagnosed by the bombation

In a case where: (a) Party A, the insurer of the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract, the insured of Party B, guaranteed Party B’s liability for medical expenses to Party C, and paid Party C with medical expenses, the Court held that the Company is obligated to pay only the amount equivalent to the expenses incurred in treating the injury suffered by Party A based on the payment guarantee contract, on the ground that Party A’s liability for medical expenses for motor vehicle accident compensation under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act is recognized within the extent of recognition of the victim’s liability for insurance expenses; and (b) Party A is obligated to pay the amount equivalent to the expenses incurred in treating the injury suffered by Party A based on the said accident; (c) in light of all the circumstances, it is not recognized that Party A’s performance of cryptism was for treating the crypt; and (d) Party C, the insurer of the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract, the insured of Party B, guaranteed Party C’s liability for medical expenses to Party C, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the amount equivalent to medical expenses incurred in relation to Party C’s obligation to return medical expenses.

Article 741 of the Civil Act, Article 726-2 of the Commercial Act, Article 12 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Filiwon, Attorneys Stabilization and Realization)

Defendant (Attorney Lee Jong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Suwon District Court Decision 2015Na304976 decided December 10, 2015

March 14, 2017

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

In accordance with the selective claims added by this Court, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 12,371,790 won with 5% interest per annum from March 12, 2015 to April 4, 2017, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Following the expansion of the purport of the claim by this court, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 275,270 won with 5% interest per annum from March 12, 2015 to April 4, 2017, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

3. The plaintiff's remaining appeals, remaining selective claims, and remaining expansion claims are dismissed, respectively.

4. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

5. The monetary payment portion under paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of this Article may be provisionally executed.

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 12,647,060 won and the amount calculated by applying each rate of 5% per annum from January 14, 2015 to the delivery date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment (see the plaintiff's application for change of the cause of the claim, which was submitted at the court of first instance, on October 20, 2015). The plaintiff shall be entitled to the compensation for damages or indemnity due to the initial tort (see the plaintiff's application for change of the cause of the claim, which was submitted at the court of first instance). The plaintiff shall be entitled to the return of unjust enrichment in the trial (see the legal brief submitted at the court of first instance as of February 7, 2017), the principal of the claim and delay damages shall be extended, and the interest rate on delay damages shall be reduced partially).

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, a company established for the purpose of the automobile insurance business, etc., concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with Nonparty 2 with the content that the insured is Nonparty 2 and the period of insurance from April 19, 2014 to April 19, 2015.

B. Nonparty 2, around July 29, 2014, around 21:30, 2014, operated the said vehicle at the building parking lot located in the Manan-gu ( Address 1 omitted) Mayang-gu (hereinafter “instant accident”). Nonparty 3, who was enjoying on the floor, was shocked (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. During the period of Ansan-si, the Defendant operated the ○○ Hospital in the Gu ( Address 2 omitted), and Nonparty 3 was diagnosed by the above hospital, such as a fluoral fluor, etc., which requires approximately eight weeks of treatment, and was discharged on July 31, 2014 on December 20, 2014.

D. On July 30, 2014, the Plaintiff guaranteed the payment guarantee of Nonparty 3’s medical expenses owed to Nonparty 3 (hereinafter “instant payment guarantee contract”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy Facts, Gap 1, 2, 3, and 12, each entry, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Nonparty 3 did not have to have the upper upper part of the right-to-face left-off, and there was no need to undergo a refluorization of the human mission. Nevertheless, the doctor belonging to the above hospital was satisfing the upper part of the right-to-hand left-off and performed a refluorization of the human mission. Accordingly, according to the instant payment guarantee contract, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the sum of KRW 12,647,060 in total of the medical expenses.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the amount equivalent to the above medical expenses under the name of compensation for damages caused by the tort caused by negligence, such as mistake, or unjust enrichment or week 1) without any legal ground.

B. Defendant’s assertion

1) As to a claim for damages caused by a tort

In light of the fact that a physician belonging to the above hospital was not negligent in diagnosing the upper right strings of light, and that Nonparty 3 was at a high risk of diverosis due to frequent drinking, and that Nonparty 3 had performed the same part before before Nonparty 3, it was an adequate and necessary treatment method.

Even if the above treatment constitutes excessive treatment, the defendant received the treatment amount as much as he performed the treatment, and the benefit of excessive treatment was received by the non-party 3, so the claim of this case is without merit.

In addition, the scope of damage suffered by the plaintiff is not clear because there is no assertion or proof about the medical expenses due to excessive treatment.

2) As to the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment

As seen earlier, the diagnosis and recovery of a doctor belonging to the above hospital constitutes an appropriate medical treatment and treatment, and the defendant received medical expenses from the plaintiff who guaranteed the payment of the medical expenses after performing the medical treatment and treatment according to the medical contract. Thus, the obligation to return unjust enrichment does not occur.

3. Determination

The Plaintiff guaranteed the payment of medical expenses for the payment of motor vehicle insurance medical fees under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and the medical institution’s claim for motor vehicle insurance medical fees against the insurance company, etc. shall be deemed to be recognized within the scope of recognition of the victim of the traffic accident’s claim for insurance money (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da107167, Apr. 26, 2013). Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay only the amount equivalent to the expenses incurred in treating the injury suffered by Nonparty 3 due to the instant accident under the instant

However, in full view of the following circumstances that are acknowledged as being comprehensively reflected in the statement No. 11, the result of the entrustment of the examination of medical records to the Chief of the first instance court, and the result of the fact inquiry to the Chief of the Seoul National University Hospital branch of the first instance court, the result of the fact inquiry to the first instance non-party non-party 3, and the result of the fact inquiry to the Chief of the Korean Medical Association, and the overall purport of the arguments, even if the fact inquiry to the Korean Medical Association for the first instance, it is not recognized that the performance of the fact-finding training to the Chief of the Korean Medical Association for the reason of the accident in this case was for treatment of the body satis. Therefore, the amount equivalent to medical expenses

① Although the frameworks of the upper part of the front part or the upper part of the front part are not clearly observed by video of the said hospital, it is difficult to completely exclude the possibility of suffering from the upper part of the front part of the front part due to the instant accident, in light of the fact that Nonparty 3 showed symptoms showing the upper part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part.

② On the other hand, the spaculation of a human mission refers to the treatment method that reconcilates the pipe so that the pipe can function without pain when the pipe is destroyed and pains occur and it is impossible to expect normal functions. This is an artificial removal of the patient’s own pipe. As such, all treatment methods should be first implemented and then considered at the last stage after the implementation of all treatment methods.

③ However, when the balone’s balone is the most general treatment method, the balone’s balone’s balone is the most general treatment method. However, the balone’s balone’s balone is damaged by blood and damage to the balone’s balone’s balone is considerably ongoing.

④ In light of Nonparty 3’s frequent drinking habits, clinical symptoms, visual autopsy, etc., the head of Seoul National University Hospital cannot completely exclude the possibility of sprinking the sprinking without sexual intercourse, and presents the opinion to the effect that the sprinking without sexual intercourse is an appropriate treatment method in light of Nonparty 3’s age and force on credit, etc. However, specific grounds supporting the above opinion are not presented, but can sufficiently be confirmed as a result of the computer sprinking if the damage to the sprinking caused by the sprinking without sexual intercourse is considerably ongoing. However, in light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to view that the sprinking of the sprinking of the sprinking of the sprinking of the sprinking of the sprinking of the sprinking of the sprinking of the sponsing of the sprinking of the sprinking of the sprinking of the patient.

⑤ Nevertheless, the above hospital’s doctor, without having attempted to do a fixed bruth on the parts of the body suspected of being cut off, immediately performed an bruptization of the human mission, and removed the brupt and inserted the brupt of the human mission.

Therefore, since the medical expenses paid by the plaintiff for the recovery of the human mission of this case and the subsequent treatment thereof cannot be deemed to have been paid pursuant to the payment guarantee contract of this case, the defendant obtained without any legal ground the profit of the amount equivalent to the above medical expenses and thereby caused damage equivalent to the same amount to the plaintiff.

Furthermore, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the scope of benefits that the Defendant is obliged to return, the Plaintiff may be recognized as having paid the Defendant the sum of KRW 12,647,060 to the medical expenses from December 3, 2014 to January 13, 2015. In light of the date and amount paid, it is reasonable to view that all of the above medical expenses incurred for the recovery of human mission and subsequent treatment.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from March 12, 2015, which is the date when a certified copy of the decision on performance recommendation of this case was served on the Defendant, until April 4, 2017, and 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment (the Plaintiff claimed damages for delay from January 14, 2015, but there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant was a malicious beneficiary before the instant lawsuit was filed).

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted within the above recognized scope, including the part extended in the trial, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed without merit. Since the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the above amount ordered to be paid in the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the court of first instance shall order the defendant to pay the above amount in accordance with the selective claims added by this court. This court orders the payment of 275,270 won (12,647,060 won - 12,371,790 won) whose claim is expanded in this court, and damages for delay thereof shall be ordered. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below. The remaining appeal by the plaintiff, the remaining selective claims and the remaining expanded claims are dismissed.

Judges Mah-young (Presiding Judge) No. 1

Note 1) The right to indemnity refers to the right that a person who discharged on behalf of the debtor acquires with respect to the debtor within a certain extent. In this case, the cause of the claim for the right to indemnity asserted by the