채무부존재확인
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The defendant's traffic accident occurred in Gangnam-si B on November 7, 2008.
The court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance court's judgment, except where the fifth or lower court's fifth or lower court's decision was cited as stated in the following Paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Whether a person is liable to pay insurance proceeds on the grounds of neutronism and neutism;
A. According to each of the evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 14 as to the existence of the right to claim insurance proceeds, the Defendant’s neutronism and the neutronism shall be recognized as a permanent pulmonary disability that occurred within two years from the date of the above accident due to the instant accident. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff is obliged to pay the Defendant the insurance proceeds of the neutronism (the purchase amount of insurance x the payment rate due to the neutronism) according to each of
B. (1) According to Article 662 of the former Commercial Act (amended by Act No. 12397, Mar. 11, 2014), the extinctive prescription of the right to claim the right to claim the right to claim the right to claim the right to claim the right to claim the right to claim the right to claim the right to claim the right to claim the damages to the Plaintiff on July 3, 2013, which was much more than two years from November 7, 2008, the date when the instant accident occurred.
The Defendant was aware or could not have known the occurrence of the post-accident at the time of the instant accident.
Even if at least he filed against ELA damage insurance company, the Seoul Central District Court 2009Da377575, which was submitted on September 15, 2010, knew that the occurrence of a residual disability occurred at least around that time through a physical appraisal statement submitted on September 15, 2010.
I would like to say.
Therefore, as of September 15, 2010, even if the defendant knew of the occurrence of the harm that occurred, the defendant claimed insurance money at the time when two years have elapsed since that time, and thus, the right to claim insurance for the harm that the defendant suffered has expired by prescription.
(2) The insurance claim is abstract before the occurrence of the insured event.