beta
(영문) 대전고등법원 2020.08.13 2019나14903

보험금

Text

1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The grounds for the judgment on the facts and the primary claim are stated in this part of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Since the judgment on the primary claim is the same as the part of the "judgment on the primary claim", it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) The defendant's insurance solicitorO did not perform the duty of care to explain the requirements for the written consent of the insured to the plaintiff A and B who is a policyholder, and thus, the plaintiffs could not receive the insurance money. The defendant, the insurer, Article 102 (1) of the Insurance Business Act (Liability of the insurance company that entrusted the solicitation) (Liability of the insurance company that entrusted the solicitation), Article 102 (Liability of the insurance company that entrusted the solicitation) of the Insurance Business Act (Liability of the insurance company that entrusted the solicitation) (1) The insurance company includes its officers, employees, insurance solicitors

The same shall apply to this Article.

(ii) The insurance company shall be liable to compensate for any loss to the policyholder in the course of the insurance solicitation, unless the insurance company has given due care to the insurance solicitor or insurance agency while entrusting the insurance solicitor or insurance agency with the insurance solicitation and has endeavored to prevent such insurance purchaser from causing any loss to the policyholder. The insurance proceeds of each of the instant insurance contracts is liable to compensate for the amount equivalent to the insurance proceeds of the instant insurance contracts. (ii) The Defendant’s alleged insurance solicitorO did not have any cause attributable to the Defendant’s breach of the duty of care, such as the duty to explain the requirements for the consent of the insured, and even if the cause was attributable, each of the instant insurance contracts was terminated due to the Plaintiffs’ breach of the duty of care

B. Determination 1 related legal principles and the death of another person as an insured event.