beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal concerning the reversed and remanded part of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
Reasons
1. The judgment of the court of first instance prior to the remand of a party member's case after remanding the case shall be null and void in violation of good morals and other social order. The defendant's appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance shall be dismissed, and with respect to the insurance money of KRW 2,220,00 which the defendant received as a beneficiary of the insurance contract specified in attached Form 1 among the total insurance money of KRW 10,370,000, cannot be claimed for return of unjust enrichment against the defendant who is a third party under the contract for the third party, part of the defendant's appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance shall be accepted, and the decision of the court of first instance against the defendant who ordered the plaintiff to pay the insurance money of KRW 8,150,00 (= KRW 10,370,000 - KRW 2,220,000) and damages for delay shall be revoked and the decision of dismissal
As to this, both the Defendant and the Defendant filed an appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the Defendant’s appeal as to the confirmation of invalidity of each insurance contract listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 3, and reversed the judgment of the court before remanding the Plaintiff’s appeal as to the part of dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claim for restitution of unjust enrichment, and remanded it to the party members. As such, the judgment of the court before remanding the Plaintiff’s appeal as to the part of dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claim for restitution of unjust enrichment of KRW 8,150,00 among the Plaintiff’
Therefore, the subject of the judgment of the party members after remand is limited to the above reversed and remanded portion, that is, to the part of the plaintiff's return of unjust enrichment against the defendant, 220,000 won and its delay damages.
2. Facts of recognition;
A. On February 25, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s spouse B concluded an insurance contract with the Defendant as the insured and the beneficiary, and on June 24, 2013, the policyholder changed from B to the Defendant.
B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant are concurrently insured workers on July 21, 2010.