beta
(영문) 대전지방법원천안지원 2019.07.05 2019가합101055

보험금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The relationship between the parties and the conclusion of the insurance contract 1) The Plaintiff is the deceased C on August 18, 1977 (hereinafter “the deceased”).

(2) On July 21, 2009, the Plaintiff and the insured entered into an insurance contract with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”). Around February 19, 2008, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into an insurance contract with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

3) The above insurance contract stipulates that when the insured suffered injury during the insurance period and died within two years from the date of the accident as a direct result, the Defendant shall pay the beneficiary the death insurance money and the bereaved family income compensation. (B) The Deceased’s death 1) stated to the purport that “the neighbor D, who was found in his house around February 10, 2018, she spawn around his house, she spawn abrutly d to drink a brut.”

D around 15:00, at the house of the Deceased and around 17:00, visited the Deceased’s house, and at that time, found that the Deceased was written and reported to 119.

The deceased transferred to a hospital by the first aid unit, but died at around 18:41.

2) The person directly in charge of the deceased’s death diagnosis is indicated as “unexploited,” and the type of death was indicated as “sick,” “sick,” “other and fire,” among “the type of death.” Meanwhile, according to the wishes of the bereaved family members, the autopsy on the deceased was not conducted. [Grounds for recognition] In the absence of dispute, A’s evidence Nos. 1 through 10, and 14 (each number omitted, hereinafter the same shall apply).

written evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the deceased was healthy, but the horse was fluor, and died in the form of clothes due to its toxicity.

This constitutes injury or death caused by “a sudden and remote accident,” which is subject to compensation under the instant insurance contract.

Therefore, the defendant is against the plaintiff.