1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. On December 28, 201, the Defendant rendered a decision to collect unjust enrichment of KRW 108,501,830 to the Plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

This part of the court's explanation is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is accepted by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The court's explanation on this part of the plaintiff's assertion of legitimacy of disposition is based on the reasoning of the first instance court's judgment No. 2.1.

Since it is the same as the statement in the claim, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The entry in the attached Form of the relevant statutes is as follows.

Judgment

In full view of the contents and purport of Article 84(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and the unique characteristics of the revocation of beneficial administrative dispositions on social security administration, when imposing the amount equivalent to the amount of insurance benefits erroneously paid from the party who received the insurance benefits under Article 84(1)3 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the disposition should be taken to collect the amount equivalent to the amount of insurance benefits erroneously paid from the party who received the insurance benefits, by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) whether the party concerned was responsible for intentional or gross negligence with respect to the supply and demand of the insurance benefits; (b) whether the amount of the insurance benefits erroneously paid could be easily recovered; and (c) the specific contents and degree of disadvantages that the party concerned would suffer through the disposition that collects the amount equivalent to the amount of the insurance benefits erroneously paid; and (d) whether the public interest needs to collect the amount equivalent to the amount of the insurance benefits erroneously paid from the party who received the insurance benefits; and (e) by comparing and comparing the disadvantages suffered by the party concerned,

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du31697, Apr. 10, 2014). The foregoing facts of recognition and the purport of the entire pleadings are comprehensively considered.