손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On April 30, 2007, the refund (won) No. 1 on the date of termination of the contract date of the deed number 1 B/L No. 3/L No. 3/L No. 3/L No. 430,670 on May 3, 2007, the insurance contract of this case was concluded between the defendant Republic of Korea and the defendant, through the defendant B/L insurance solicitor, who is the heading post office, on April 15, 2008, through each of the insurance contracts of this case (hereinafter “each of the insurance contracts of this case”). On the other hand, each of the insurance contracts of this case was terminated on May 3, 2007, as follows: < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 21715, Apr. 15, 2013; Presidential Decree No. 21,953, 160
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff asserted and determined that the Defendant B voluntarily terminated each of the instant insurance contracts and used the refund money for termination, and the Defendant Republic of Korea claimed for payment of the above damages and damages for delay, alleging that the Plaintiff incurred losses equivalent to the refund money for termination by paying the refund money for termination upon the Defendant B’s claim for termination, which was not the policyholder, but the Plaintiff. However, there is no evidence supporting the Plaintiff’s assertion.
Rather, the following circumstances, which can be revealed by the purport of the entire argument in the statement No. 2 and No. 1 of Eul, are that the plaintiff himself/herself has signed and a private person on the applicant column for each application for termination refund (Evidence No. 2) (the plaintiff asserted that it was only a signature and a private person as requested by the defendant Eul, even though he/she is unaware of whether it is a document with lack of eyesight, it is difficult to believe the above assertion as it is in terms of its body, etc.) and each application for cancellation refund is accompanied by a copy of the plaintiff's resident registration certificate, while there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff delivered his/her resident registration certificate to the defendant Eul, in particular, there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff delivered his/her resident registration certificate to the defendant Eul.