1. Defendant Eastern Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. is the Plaintiff A, the Plaintiff’s KRW 8,368,510, the Plaintiff’s KRW 4,569,110, and the Plaintiff C.

1. Basic facts

A. If the victims of traffic accidents caused by a vehicle that entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with an insurance company while operating the hospital request a CT and MRI test (hereinafter “CT and MRI test”), the Plaintiffs notified the Defendants, including the Defendants, and confirmed the intent to guarantee the payment, and have received insurance money equivalent to the cost of the video photographing test from the insurance company, etc. in accordance with the standards for calculating medical fees set forth in the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.

Accordingly, motor vehicle insurance medical fees are subject to the health insurance benefit act and relative value point notified by the Minister of Health and Welfare under Article 2 (1) of the National Health Insurance Act and Article 24 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

B. ① On April 6, 2011, the Minister of Health, Welfare and Family Affairs publicly announced the revision of the list of health insurance benefit costs and benefit benefit costs, which contain the contents of reducing 15% of the relative point value of CT by 201-43, 30% of the relative point value of MRI, and 16% of the relative point value of PE.

(2) From May 1, 2011 to November 20, 2011, the Plaintiffs received insurance money equivalent to the cost of filming, as shown in the corresponding column of the attached Table, from the Defendants as indicated in the said column.

③ However, on October 21, 2011, the Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Guhap13125 (Seoul High Court Decision 2011Nu40655) rendered an order to revoke the instant reduction notice, which became final and conclusive around that time.

C. The difference between the amount that the plaintiffs could have received pursuant to the public notice prior to the reduction of the above video photographing costs during the above period and the amount actually received according to the city is as shown in the corresponding column or order.

[Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute, and each of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 42.