보험에관한 소송
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On June 27, 2007, the Plaintiff, a company running a non-life insurance business, concluded an insurance contract in the attached sheet with Defendant B (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings
2. The Defendants’ determination on the defense of this case’s safety defense did not enter into the instant insurance contract for the purpose of illegitimate acquisition of insurance proceeds, and thus, the instant insurance contract is valid, and thus, there is no benefit to confirm the invalidity of the instant insurance contract.
However, since the Defendants asserted that the instant insurance contract is not null and void, the Plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation of invalidity of the instant insurance contract against the Defendants.
(1) Whether the insurance contract of this case is invalid or not is a matter relating to the legitimacy of the claim of this case, rather than whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful. Therefore, the defendants' main defense to safety is without merit.
3. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant insurance contract was concluded for the purpose of unfairly acquiring insurance money through multiple insurance contracts, and thus, the instant insurance contract is null and void in violation of good morals and other social order stipulated in Article 103 of the Civil Act.
B. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant A for confirmation of non-existence of insurance claim based on the instant insurance contract, claiming that the instant insurance contract was null and void in violation of Article 103 of the Civil Act in 2011, but was dismissed. However, the Plaintiff appealed, but received the judgment dismissing the appeal by Seoul Southern District Court 2013Na6228, and received the judgment dismissing the appeal by Supreme Court Decision 2014Da23379. Accordingly, the instant lawsuit contradicts the res judicata effect of the instant judgment. (2) As such, Defendant B did not concluded the instant insurance contract with the aim of denying the insurance claim, the instant insurance contract was concluded.