logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
서울고등법원 2018.10.16 2017나2056545
부당이득금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the Plaintiff’s grounds for appeal as set forth in paragraph (2) below. Thus, this is cited by the main sentence of

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that although the lawsuit of this case is in the form of a lawsuit claiming restitution of unjust enrichment or a lawsuit claiming restitution of unjust enrichment or a lawsuit claiming confirmation of non-existence of insurance money, the defendant bears the burden of proof as to the fact that the accident of this case constitutes an insurance accident insured by the insurance contract of this case.

However, in the case of the insurance contract of this case, ① the lawsuit claiming the return of unjust enrichment on the ground that the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff, as in the lawsuit of this case, is unjust enrichment, and ② the lawsuit claiming the insurance money claimed by the Defendant, the insured, or ③ the lawsuit claiming the non-existence of the insurance money claimed by the Plaintiff, which is the insurer, cannot be deemed to be identical to the substance of the lawsuit, as in all different different cases. If the Plaintiff asserts, the Defendant, the insured, must prove that there is a legal cause for the payment of the benefits. This argument cannot be accepted in light of the legal principles as to the burden of claiming the return of unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant accident did not occur during the transport of the instant cargo, but occurred after the completion of the transport or before the commencement of the transport, and that the Defendant is not entitled to the insurance proceeds under the insurance contract of this case, and that the Defendant should return the insurance proceeds received from the Plaintiff without any legal cause to the unjust enrichment, and partly supplement the claim in the first instance trial, and this court evidence No. 36

arrow