1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s treatment of the fall accident on October 24, 2017 by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who runs a building business under the trade name of “D”.

C is the Plaintiff-friendly family member, who has been able to help him and received small amount of money according to the Plaintiff’s work day before the occurrence of the following accident.

B. On October 24, 2017, C, while playing in the Plaintiff’s office, was accompanied by E, to repair the roof structure of the building located in Daegu North-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant building”) depending on the Plaintiff, along with E.

C Around 11:00 to 11:20 on the same day, a shooting bridge connecting the instant building and the rooftops of the next building was crashed, which was situated on the rooftop repair work site of the building of this case.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”. Accordingly, C suffered from injury to a funeral, damage to a funeral with no open room within the river, and injury to a funeral, and injury to the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the deceased, and was treated through health insurance at G Hospital and G Hospital.

C. The Defendant paid the insurance benefits to the relevant medical care institution pursuant to Article 44 of the National Health Insurance Act, out of C’s total medical care benefit costs of KRW 55,215,840, the remainder of KRW 46,363,150, excluding the co-payment of KRW 8,852,690, was paid to C. Pursuant to Article 44(2) of the National Health Insurance Act, the Defendant paid KRW 3,513,230,000 that C bears exceeding the annual maximum of KRW 2,560,000 per annum for the year 2017.

On June 27, 2018, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the return of unjust enrichment that the Plaintiff would pay the Plaintiff the amount paid to the medical care institution by unjust enrichment on the ground that the Plaintiff had the responsibility to compensate for medical care under the Labor Standards Act.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 to 7, 9 to 12, and Eul witness C and E, respectively.