beta
Text
1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. Defendant C Co., Ltd. raised in the trial.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows: “A”, which is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion, rejected each entry of evidence Nos. 41 through 47; and Defendant 2, who is raised in the trial, is the same as the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment as set forth in the following paragraph 2; thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. Determination on Defendant 2’s counterclaim
A. Defendant 2’s assertion that the Plaintiff received hospital treatment due to the instant accident, and accordingly, Defendant 1 paid the sum of KRW 34,101,730 from July 201 to September 2016 as the Plaintiff’s medical expenses, and Defendant 2 paid KRW 16,72,800 out of the above medical expenses at Defendant 1’s request from July 29, 201 to August 11, 2016.
However, in this case, the plaintiff asserted that there was a strong direct collision with the defendant 1, and that there was an indirect collision with the defendant 2, the plaintiff did not assert or prove any specific circumstance at the time of the above indirect collision or the strength of the collision. It is reasonable to view that the plaintiff's injury is due to a strong direct collision with the defendant 1, and it is irrelevant to the minor collision with the defendant 2.
In sum, Defendant 2 paid KRW 16,722,80 out of the medical expenses paid by Defendant 1 to Defendant 1 as the recourse, although there was no liability to compensate the Plaintiff’s injury. The Plaintiff is obligated to pay the above KRW 16,722,800 to Defendant 2 due to the return of unjust enrichment.
B. The instant accident stopped 3 and 4 vehicles and the Plaintiff’s vehicle successively after the drilling accident of the 1 and 2 vehicles. Defendant 1, following the Plaintiff’s vehicle, is towing the Plaintiff vehicle, and Defendant 2, following that, Defendant 1, who concealed Defendant 1 vehicle, was towing the Plaintiff vehicle, as seen earlier.