logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.11.10 2019나68497
부당이득금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

Facts of recognition

The plaintiff is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement to compensate for the damages incurred by the operation of the D Bus owned by the mutual aid subscriber Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff Co., Ltd."), and the defendant is a driver of the Ew125-wheeled Vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the "Ew125-wheeled Vehicle").

At around 5:20 on April 19, 2018, the Defendant sustained injuries, such as “the instant accident,” “the senior executive officer of the front felon, felon, and felonization of the felon felon felon felon felon felon felon felon felon felon felon felon felon felon felon felon felon felon felon felon felon felon felon felon felon felon,

From May 24, 2018 to June 20, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 6,158,130 to B in total with medical expenses and the amount agreed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including a provisional number), plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings, and plaintiff's assertion that the defendant asserted that the plaintiff's defendant caused the accident of this case in a state of normal driving without properly operating the steering gear in a state of alcohol level exceeding 0.1% of the blood alcohol level corresponding to the revocation of a license, due to a state of balanced sense and speed reduction loss, and the violation of the plaintiff's vehicle's parking regulations do not relate to the accident of this case.

Therefore, since the accident of this case occurred entirely by the defendant's negligence, the defendant should return the medical expenses and nursing expenses paid by the plaintiff to the defendant as unjust enrichment.

Judgment

The following circumstances, which are recognized by the purport of Gap evidence 1 to 6 and the entire arguments, are as follows: ① The plaintiff vehicle illegally parked the three-lanes of the six-lane distance from which the parking and stopping is not permitted at night, without permission; ② the plaintiff vehicle parked on the road at night while driving on the road at night.

arrow