1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

2...

On June 7, 2007, the accident of this case between B and C buses opened from Dong-dong, Guro-gu, Seoul at around 06:50 on June 7, 2007 was wholly caused by the negligence of Co-Defendant A of the first instance trial, a driver of B bus, and thus, the Plaintiff is not liable to compensate the Plaintiff who entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid contract for C buses.

However, the plaintiff has already paid the amount of insurance money equivalent to the medical expenses to the co-defendant A of the first instance trial, claiming that there was a right to claim the reimbursement of the medical expenses under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act in subrogation of the defendant.

Therefore, in light of the purport of Article 59(2) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 8835 of Dec. 31, 2007) that intends to protect an employee by allowing the employee to secure the claim for medical care benefits against the Defendant of the Co-Defendant A in the first instance trial to be the object of subrogation of the obligee, and thus, the right not to allow the seizure cannot be the object of subrogation of the obligee’s general security. However, if it can be deemed that the payment of medical care benefits by the Plaintiff’s medical expenses was compensated for the above damage and the purpose of protecting the employee was achieved, the right to medical care benefits can also be the object of subrogation of the obligee.

I would like to say.

However, even according to the plaintiff's assertion, the accident of this case was entirely caused by the negligence of co-defendant A of the first instance court, and therefore, the co-defendant A of the first instance court is obligated to return the amount equivalent to the medical expenses already received to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment, and as long as it is possible to enforce compulsory execution based on the above final judgment, the damage of co-defendant A of the first instance court.