1. Of the part concerning the claim for return of unjust enrichment in the judgment of the court of first instance, the following payment order is ordered against the defendant.

1. The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified even if each evidence submitted to the court of first instance was presented to this court.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the first instance court’s first instance judgment’s first instance judgment’s first instance judgment’s third first instance judgment’s first instance judgment’s first instance judgment’s first instance judgment’s first instance judgment’s first instance judgment’s first instance judgment’s first instance judgment’s first instance judgment’s first instance judgment’s first instance judgment’s second instance judgment

2. In the case of a suit seeking the confirmation of the existence of an obligation under the relevant legal doctrine, if the plaintiff, who is the debtor, denies the fact that the cause of an obligation occurred by specifying the claim first, the defendant, the creditor, bears the burden of proving the facts regarding the requirements for the creation of a claim under the relevant legal relationship.

(2) In light of the following circumstances, in light of the records as indicated in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 8, and the results of the physical examination of the first instance court’s H hospital, J Hospital and I Hospital’s first instance court’s fact inquiry inquiry results, and the entire purport of oral argument, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the causal relationship between the injury alleged by the Defendant and the accident in this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. (A) The Defendant’s physical examination of the first instance court and the first instance court’s first instance court’s I Hospital is insufficient to acknowledge the causal relationship between the injury alleged by the Defendant and the accident in this case, based on the results of the physical examination of the first instance court’s I Hospital’s first instance court’s first and the first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s first and the second instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s second instance court’s second judgment on April 20, 2017.

In addition, the above physical appraisal suggested that the status of the defendant's military register due to the accident of this case constitutes a temporary fluoral base and thus it is not necessary to conduct causation, future medical expenses, and evaluation of disability.