[채무부존재확인] 항소[각공2012상,177]
In a case where Party A entered into a multiple insurance contract with several insurance companies similar to the content of security, etc., such as concluding an insurance contract with Party B to receive large amount of insurance money by repeatedly hospitalized for a long time, and Party B claimed the invalidity, etc. of the insurance contract against Party A, the case holding that the insurance contract is null and void against the good morals and other social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act.
In a case where Party A entered into a multiple insurance contract with several insurance companies in which the content of coverage expenses, etc. are similar to that of the insurance company at the time of the occurrence of the insurance accident with Party B, and Party B claimed the invalidity of the insurance contract against Party A, the case holding that Party A’s insurance contract concluded with Party B is inappropriate to deem that Party A’s insurance contract to be null and void because it is difficult to view that Party A’s insurance contract was concluded with the most repeatedly and repeatedly for a long time in light of the following: (a) there is no evidence to acknowledge the income of Party A even though the insurance premium to be paid for the short time is considerable; and (b) most of the insurance accidents occurred due to Party A’s engine infection, high-tension, light of the degree of disease or injury; and (c) the progress of treatment; and (d) there was no notification of the fact that Party B subscribed to the same nature as above at the time of entering into the insurance contract with Party B; and (c) it is difficult to conclude the insurance contract with Party B for pure life, physical harm; and (d)
Article 103 of the Civil Act
such Green Damage Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Document, Attorney Sung Jae-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Defendant
November 17, 2011
1. It is confirmed that there is no obligation of the plaintiff to pay insurance money to the defendant based on the insurance contract listed in the attached list;
2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 8,301,085 won with 5% interest per annum from April 14, 201 to December 15, 201, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.
3. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.
4. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
5. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.
Except for the claim for 5% of the damages for delay referred to in paragraph (2) of the order as 6%, the provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) shall apply.
1. Basic facts
A. Conclusion of the instant insurance contract
(1) On December 8, 2008, the Defendant concluded an insurance contract with the Plaintiff Company as shown in the attached list stating that the insured shall pay the insured expenses for hospitalization of disease, hospitalization of disease, medical expenses for hospitalization of injury, and medical expenses for hospitalization of injury, etc. (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).
(2) At the time of entering into the instant insurance contract, the Defendant indicated the “Duty to Notify the entire contract” column of the instant insurance contract as follows: “Is to ask questions that “Is another insurance company (including mutual aid, post offices, etc.) has subscribed to life insurance or (long-term) damage insurance that covers any risk identical or similar to the instant insurance?” and indicated “Isk” column as “Isk”.
B. Occurrence of insurance accidents, payment of insurance proceeds of the Plaintiff Company, etc.
(1) The Defendant received hospital treatment for 220 days in total from February 2, 2009 to February 21, 2009, such as receiving hospital treatment for a total of 20 days from February 2, 2009 to March 14, 201, under the name of bottle, scarke, etc. at a plane hospital located in the central Dong 3-dong, Changwon-si, Changwon-si. The Defendant received hospital treatment for 10 days in total at a plane hospital, Masan-si, Masan Hospital, Masan-si, etc., and the detailed details are as follows.
Medical institutions with the examination days of hospitalization included in the body of the head of the relevant medical institution from February 2, 209 to February 21, 209, 100 to February 21, 209, 200, Masan Hospital, such as Madin Madin Madin Madin Madin Madin Hospital, from April 18, 209 to May 4, 17, 209, from August 21, 209 to September 22, 2009, Madin Madin Madin Madin Madin Madin Madin Hospital, from November 4, 209 to November 22, 209, 100 to 10.22 days from 10.22 days from 209 to 10.3 days from 205 to 10.3 days from 105 to 13. Madin Madin Madin Madin Hospital.
(2) Under the foregoing insured incident, the Plaintiff Company paid the Defendant an insurance amount equivalent to KRW 8,301,085 in total on 14 occasions (Provided, That the Defendant claimed insurance proceeds to the Plaintiff Company on the ground that he/she was hospitalized in the Mar. 14, 201 for a total of 25 days from February 18, 201 to March 18, 201, but the Plaintiff Company rejected the payment of the insurance proceeds, as follows).
본문내 포함된 표 내 용 지급일 지급액 임시생활비, 상해입원의료비 2009. 3. 11. 515,930원 질병입원비, 질병입원의료비 2009. 5. 13. 527,568원 16대 질병입원비 2009. 6. 3. 280,000원 질병입원비, 질병입원의료비 2009. 9. 24. 722,770원 집병입원비, 질병간병비, 질병입원의료비 2009. 12. 11. 1,081,386원 질병입원비, 질병입원의료비 2010. 3. 4. 753,503원 질병간병비 2010. 3. 5. 500,000원 질병입원비, 질병간병비, 질병입원의료비, 질병통원의료비 2010. 6. 7. 964,962원 질병입원의료비 2010. 6. 9. 82,995원 질병입원비, 질병입원의료비 2010. 9. 30. 440,000원 질병입원비, 16대 질병입원비, 질병입원의료비 2010. 4. 28. 883,482원 질병간병비, 16대 질병입원비 2010. 4. 29. 522,242원 질병입원비, 16대 질병입원비, 질병입원의료비 2010. 11. 18. 929,857원 질병입원의료비 2010. 11. 22. 96,390원 합계 ？ 8,301,085원
(c) Conclusion of respective insurance contracts, receipt of insurance proceeds, etc. with other insurance companies;
(1) The Defendant concluded multiple insurance contracts that are similar to the instant insurance contracts with other insurance companies prior to and after the conclusion of the instant insurance contracts. The details are as follows.
본문내 포함된 표 보험회사 가입일자 보험명 월보험료 삼성생명보험 주식회사 1993. 5. 21. 무새생활암 11,600원 교보생명보험 주식회사 2004. 6. 25. 무배당교보다사랑CI보험 87,200원 아메리칸 홈 어슈어런스 캄파니 2008. 11. 7. 삼성카드회원을 위한 베스트 건강 상해보험 36,600원 한화손해보험 주식회사 2008. 11. 7. (무)베리굿의료보험0810 30,030원 동양생명보험 주식회사 2008. 12. 8. (무)수호천사하늘애정기-1형 61,600원 동양생명보험 주식회사 2008. 12. 8. (무)입원특약1형 16,100원 한화손해보험 주식회사 2008. 12. 8. 한아름플러스 종합보험 74,100원 메리츠화재해상보험 주식회사 2008. 12. 9. 무배당알파Plus보장 60,000원 흥국화재해상보험 주식회사 2008. 12. 9. 무배당 행복을 다주는 가족사랑보험 57,500원 메트라이프생명보험 주식회사 2008. 12. 19. 무배당 마스터플랜 변액유니버셜 종신Ⅱ보험 62,900원 메트라이프생명보험 주식회사 2009. 5. 29. 무배당 마스터플랜 변액유니버셜 종신Ⅱ보험 67,560원 메트라이프생명보험 주식회사 2009. 12. 3. 무배당 마스터플랜 변액유니버셜 종신Ⅱ보험 65,700원 아메리칸 홈 어슈어런스 캄파니 2010. 2. 24. 삼성카드회원을 위한 Super 홈케어보험 29,700원 보험료 합계 ？ ？ 660,590원
(2) Meanwhile, the Defendant received total amount of KRW 12,15,937 from Amera Home Service Co., Ltd., total of KRW 6,754,586 from Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd., total of KRW 102,000 from Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd., total of KRW 14,350,00, total of KRW 12,666,671, total of KRW 13,058,420, total of KRW 12,630,00, total of KRW 25,958,457 from Hanman Life Insurance Co., Ltd., and total of KRW 12,630,00 from Hanman Life Insurance Co., Ltd., Ltd., and total of KRW 25,958,457, total amount of KRW 25,071, total amount of KRW 102,00 from Hanmana Life Insurance Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., and the following result:
본문내 포함된 표 보험회사 지급시기 지급금액 지급사유 아메리칸 홈 어슈어런스 캄파니 2009. 3. 31. 115,937원 경부염좌 등 아메리칸 홈 어슈어런스 캄파니 2009. 5. 12. 1,020,000원 위·식도역류 질환 아메리칸 홈 어슈어런스 캄파니 2009. 9. 24. 1,320,000원 치밀화 골염 등 아메리칸 홈 어슈어런스 캄파니 2010. 4. 5. 1,860,000원 치밀화 골염 등 아메리칸 홈 어슈어런스 캄파니 2010. 6. 10. 1,140,000원 치밀화 골염 등 아메리칸 홈 어슈어런스 캄파니 2010. 10. 22. 1,320,000원 치밀화 골염 등 아메리칸 홈 어슈어런스 캄파니 2011. 4. 1. 1,500,000원 치밀화 골염 등 아메리칸 홈 어슈어런스 캄파니 2009. 12. 10. 1,320,000원 기관지염 아메리칸 홈 어슈어런스 캄파니 2010. 4. 27. 1,200,000원 기관지염 아메리칸 홈 어슈어런스 캄파니 2010. 11. 10. 1,320,000원 기관지염 등 메리츠화재해상보험 주식회사 2009. 1. 31.(사고일) 754,586원 경부염좌 등 메리츠화재해상보험 주식회사 2009. 4. 18.(사고일) 510,000원 위·식도역류 질환 등 메리츠화재해상보험 주식회사 2009. 8. 21.(사고일) 2,820,000원 치밀화 골염 등 메리츠화재해상보험 주식회사 2010. 3. 25.(사고일) 600,000원 기관지염 메리츠화재해상보험 주식회사 2010. 8. 30.(사고일) 1,410,000원 허리 통증 메리츠화재해상보험 주식회사 2010. 10. 20.(사고일) 660,000원 기관지염 등 삼성생명보험 주식회사 2011. 1. 27. 102,000원 경부염좌 등 동양생명보험 주식회사 2009. 3. 19. 1,190,000원 목뼈의 염좌 등 동양생명보험 주식회사 2009. 5. 14. 980,000원 위·식도역류 질환 등 동양생명보험 주식회사 2009. 9. 23. 1,330,000원 치밀화 골염 동양생명보험 주식회사 2009. 12. 23. 1,330,000원 기관지염 동양생명보험 주식회사 2010. 2. 25. 2,170,000원 치밀화 골염 동양생명보험 주식회사 2010. 4. 30. 1,400,000원 기관지염 동양생명보험 주식회사 2010. 6. 4. 1,120,000원 등통증 동양생명보험 주식회사 2010. 9. 29. 1,540,000원 아래허리통증 동양생명보험 주식회사 2010. 11. 9. 1,540,000원 기관지염 동양생명보험 주식회사 2011. 3. 23. 1,750,000원 아래허리통증 흥국화재해상보험 주식회사 2009. 3. 2. 800,000원 경부염좌 등 흥국화재해상보험 주식회사 2009. 5. 26. 680,000원 위·식도역류 질환 등 흥국화재해상보험 주식회사 2009. 10. 30. 1,220,468원 치밀화 골염 등 흥국화재해상보험 주식회사 2009. 12. 8. 880,000원 치밀화 골염 등 흥국화재해상보험 주식회사 2010. 3. 4. 3,240,000원 치밀화 골염 등 흥국화재해상보험 주식회사 2010. 4. 27. 800,131원 기관지염 흥국화재해상보험 주식회사 2010. 6. 8. 760,000원 치밀화 골염 등 흥국화재해상보험 주식회사 2010. 6. 16. 1,001,315원 치밀화 골염 등 흥국화재해상보험 주식회사 2011. 6. 23. 674,057원 기관지폐렴 등 흥국화재해상보험 주식회사 2011. 1. 24. 10,700원 무릎뼈의 기타 이상 등 흥국화재해상보험 주식회사 2011. 3. 31. 2,000,000원 강직성척추증 등 메트라이프생명보험 주식회사 2009. 2. 27. 850,000원 ？ 메트라이프생명보험 주식회사 2009. 5. 12. 700,000원 ？ 메트라이프생명보험 주식회사 2009. 7. 30. 7,560원 ？ 메트라이프생명보험 주식회사 2009. 9. 22. 950,000원 ？ 메트라이프생명보험 주식회사 2009. 12. 7. 950,000원 ？ 메트라이프생명보험 주식회사 2010. 3. 5. 1,550,000원 ？ 메트라이프생명보험 주식회사 2010. 5. 3. 1,000,000원 ？ 메트라이프생명보험 주식회사 2010. 6. 3. 950,000원 ？ 메트라이프생명보험 주식회사 2010. 10. 1. 1,100,000원 ？ 메트라이프생명보험 주식회사 2010. 11. 15. 1,100,860원 ？ 메트라이프생명보험 주식회사 2011. 3. 24. 1,250,000원 ？ 메트라이프생명보험 주식회사 2010. 3. 5. 500,000원 ？ 메트라이프생명보험 주식회사 2011. 3. 24. 100,000원 ？ 메트라이프생명보험 주식회사 2011. 3. 24. 850,000원 ？ 메트라이프생명보험 주식회사 2011. 3. 24. 550,000원 ？ 메트라이프생명보험 주식회사 2010. 1. 21. 650,000원 ？ 교보생명보험 주식회사 2009. 2. 23. 510,000원 입원 교보생명보험 주식회사 2009. 5. 11. 1,120,000원 입원 교보생명보험 주식회사 2009. 10. 8. 600,000원 입원 교보생명보험 주식회사 2009. 10. 8. 570,000원 입원 교보생명보험 주식회사 2009. 12. 14. 1,760,000원 입원 교보생명보험 주식회사 2010. 2. 24. 930,000원 입원 교보생명보험 주식회사 2010. 4. 30. 1,600,000원 입원 교보생명보험 주식회사 2010. 6. 3. 570,000원 입원 교보생명보험 주식회사 2010. 9. 28. 570,000원 입원 교보생명보험 주식회사 2010. 11. 16. 1,760,000원 입원 교보생명보험 주식회사 2011. 3. 25. 750,000원 입원 교보생명보험 주식회사 2010. 2. 24. 300,000원 입원 교보생명보험 주식회사 2011. 1. 31. 690,000원 입원 교보생명보험 주식회사 2011. 3. 29. 510,000원 입원 교보생명보험 주식회사 2010. 1. 19. 390,000원 입원 한화손해보험 주식회사 2009. 3. 5. 715,938원 목뼈의 염좌 등 한화손해보험 주식회사 2009. 3. 5. 737,910원 목뼈의 염좌 등 한화손해보험 주식회사 2009. 5. 13. 678,210원 호흡기계통의 질환 한화손해보험 주식회사 2009. 5. 24. 1,677,568원 호흡기계통의 질환 한화손해보험 주식회사 2010. 10. 1. 3,292,533원 고혈압, 치밀화 골염 한화손해보험 주식회사 2010. 11. 16. 7,481,837원 고혈압, 기관지염 한화손해보험 주식회사 2010. 11. 22. 2,429,854원 고혈압, 기관지염 한화손해보험 주식회사 2011. 3. 28. 6,066,949원 고혈압, 치밀화 골염 한화손해보험 주식회사 2011. 3. 28. 750,000원 고혈압, 치밀화 골염 한화손해보험 주식회사 2011. 3. 28. 252,250원 근육골격계통 질환 등 한화손해보험 주식회사 2011. 10. 26. 720,000원 역류성 식도염 등 한화손해보험 주식회사 2011. 10. 26. 1,155,408원 역류성 식도염 등
[Ground of recognition] The absence of dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 7, medical corporation's drilling hospital head, medical corporation's YY Hospital head, National Health Insurance Corporation's place of origin, president of the National Health Insurance Corporation's place of origin in the Republic of Korea, Amerasia Home Service branch, Samsung sports insurance company, Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd., Samsungyangyang Life Insurance Co., Ltd., interesting country Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., Mtrate Life Insurance Co., Ltd., Mtrate Life Insurance Co., Ltd., Mtrate Life Insurance Co., Ltd., and Korea Commercial Insurance Co., Ltd.
2. Determination as to the claim for confirmation of non-existence of the insurance money of this case
A. The plaintiff company's assertion
(1) The assertion that it is invalid as an anti-social juristic act
In light of the fact that the Defendant entered into a multiple insurance contract in addition to the conclusion of the instant insurance contract, and accordingly, received insurance money equivalent to KRW 220,000 per day in the case of hospitalization due to injury from the insurance company, and KRW 200,000 per day in the case of hospitalization due to disease, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant entered into the instant insurance contract for the purpose of illegitimate acquisition of insurance money through multiple insurance contracts. Accordingly, the instant insurance contract is null and void as a juristic act contrary to good morals and social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act
(2) The assertion that it will be terminated as a breach of disclosure obligation under the Commercial Act
Although the Defendant had already subscribed to several insurance identical or similar to the instant insurance at the time of the conclusion of the instant insurance contract, it did not notify the Plaintiff Company thereof. Therefore, the Plaintiff Company should terminate the instant insurance contract by filing a suit in accordance with Article 655 of the Commercial Act on the ground of breach of duty to notify.
(3) The assertion that the legal act by fraud is revoked
As above, the defendant had bought a large number of similar insurance, but did not notify the plaintiff company properly, and thus the plaintiff company deceivings the plaintiff company, so the plaintiff company shall cancel the insurance contract by filing the lawsuit of this case pursuant to Article 110 of the Civil Act on the ground that it is an
B. Determination
(1) An act of anti-social order null and void under Article 103 of the Civil Act not only violates good morals and other social order, but also goes against social order, even though its content itself does not go against social order, it includes the case where the contents of rights and obligations which are the object of a juristic act legally enforces it, or the case where a juristic act becomes contrary to social order by being associated with social order or monetary consideration, and the motive of the juristic act indicated or known to the other party is contrary to social order. In a case where a policyholder concludes an insurance contract for the purpose of unlawfully acquiring insurance money through multiple insurance contracts, allowing the payment of insurance money under an insurance contract concluded for this purpose not only would go beyond social reasonableness by encouraging the speculative spirit to gain unjust profits through abuse of insurance contracts, but also would undermine the purpose of the insurance system, destroying the risk of causing a loss, and causing the sacrifice of many subscribers, and thus, it shall be null and void against the good morals and other social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da38585, Jul. 28, 2005). 2005).
Meanwhile, inasmuch as there is no evidence to directly acknowledge the existence of multiple insurance contracts for the purpose of illegally acquiring the relevant insurance proceeds, such purpose may be ratified based on all the circumstances, including the occupation and property status of the policyholder, the background leading up to the conclusion of multiple insurance contracts, the scale of the insurance contracts, and the circumstances after the conclusion of the insurance contracts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da23858, Jul. 28, 2005; 2009Da12115, May 28, 2009).
(2) In light of the above legal principles, it is difficult to view the following circumstances, namely, ① the Defendant purchased 13 insurance contracts that are similar to the instant insurance contracts before and after the conclusion of the instant insurance contracts with a large number of insurance companies, and ② the Defendant concluded the instant insurance contracts with the Plaintiff Company on December 8, 2008 with a total of 60,590, as well as 9 insurance contracts that were concluded on the ground that it was difficult to conclude the instant insurance contracts with a large number of insurance companies, and the Defendant purchased 1 insurance contracts with a large number of life insurance contracts with a large number of insurance companies, including the fact that it was difficult to conclude the instant insurance contracts with a large number of insurance companies for 0 years from November 208 to December 2008.
(3) Therefore, there is no obligation to pay the instant insurance money to the Defendant of the Plaintiff Company.
3. Determination on the claim for return of unjust enrichment
As seen above, the insurance contract of this case is null and void. As such, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff company 8,301,085 won in total of insurance proceeds received from the plaintiff company according to the insurance contract of this case and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from April 15, 2011 to December 15, 201, which is the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of complete payment (as to this case, the plaintiff company claimed damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of the decision of this case, and as to this case, the "debt arising from commercial act" of Article 54 of the Commercial Act includes obligations directly arising from commercial activities as well as obligations recognized as modified or modified, but the defendant's obligations with respect to the plaintiff company are not identical with the legal obligation of this case 20.
4. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable within the scope of the above recognition and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
[Attachment] Description of Insurance Contract: omitted
Judges Noh Sung-sik (Presiding Justice)