보험금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding the following judgments, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. The Defendant’s assertion (1) The instant insurance contract is an insurance contract covering the death of another person as an insured event and did not obtain written consent based on the effective will of the deceased, who is the insured, until the conclusion of the insurance contract. Thus, it is null and void in violation of Article 731(
② The Plaintiff concluded the instant insurance contract by deceiving the Defendant with a view to predicting that the deceased’s symptoms rapidly aggravated and as a result, by deceiving a large amount of insurance money. The Defendant revoked the instant insurance contract pursuant to Article 110 of the Civil Act.
③ The Deceased notified the Defendant that he was unable to drink alcohol at all, despite the fact that he had the influence of drinking habits around five illness each day. The Defendant shall cancel the instant insurance contract in accordance with Article 651 of the Commercial Act.
B. 1) In full view of the purport of the argument on the invalidation of the insurance contract due to the omission of the deceased’s written consent, the deceased’s statement Nos. 1, 10-7, and 10-7 of the evidence No. 10-7 and the purport of the argument as a result of the written appraisal by K appraiser K of the trial of the case, it is recognized that the deceased directly entered the deceased’s name in the subscription column for the insurance contract of this case, and it is reasonable to deem that the deceased, as the insured, consented to the insurance contract of this case by taking the name of the deceased in the subscription form for the insurance contract of this case. As such, the first defendant’s above assertion on a different premise is without merit.