[보험금][하집1993(1),220]
(a) The case holding that if the insured has paid the first insurance premium even before the insurer has consented, the insured is liable to pay the life insurance money;
B. Whether a beneficiary may interfere with the progress of extinctive prescription of the right to claim insurance, under the circumstance that the beneficiary was aware of the insured insurance coverage and the occurrence of the right to claim
(c) Whether the failure of the policyholder or the insured to notify the occurrence of an accident affects the progress of extinctive prescription of insurance claims;
(d) Whether the insurer is bound to declare his/her intention to accept the insurance premium again or to notify the insurer of the payment of the insurance premium, maximum notice of the lapse, where any insurance claim occurs due to an insured
B. It does not constitute a reason to obstruct the progress of extinctive prescription of the insurance claim even if the beneficiary knew of the insured's insurance coverage and the occurrence of the insurance claim, even though he/she was notified of whether he/she would receive the refund for invalidation from the insurer.
C. The duty to notify the policyholder or the insured’s occurrence of an accident is a prerequisite for claiming insurance proceeds, and the insurer is not liable for jointly and severally liable for the payment of insurance proceeds, and such duty to notify does not affect the progress of extinctive prescription of the insurance claim.
D. In the event that the insured dies before the insurer expresses his/her intention to accept the insurance contract and the insurance claim occurs, there is no obligation to again make an insurer express his/her intention to accept the insurance contract, or to give notice of payment peremptory notice of the insurance premium or notice of lapse
A. Articles 644 and 656(b) of the Commercial Act. Article 166 of the Civil Act, Article 658 of the Commercial Act, Article 657 of the Commercial Act. Articles 638-2 and 650 of the Commercial Act
Plaintiff
Red Life Insurance Co., Ltd.
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 10 million won with an annual interest rate of 6% from February 28, 1988 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 25% per annum from the next day to the full payment date.
The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.
1. Determination on the claim for insurance proceeds
(a) Occurrence of insurance claims;
According to the above evidence No. 2 (Notice of Rejection, No. 4-1 and No. 2), Gap evidence No. 4 (Standard Terms and Conditions for Life Insurance), Eul evidence No. 1-2 (P. 2) or video of the above insurance company (Provided, That the non-party's subscription to the above insurance contract shall be excluded from the subsequent contents of No. 2) and the fact that the non-party's subscription to the above insurance contract was rejected on February 27, 198, and the non-party's subscription to the above insurance contract cannot be notified of the fact that the non-party's subscription to the above insurance contract was rejected on the first half of the insurance contract by the non-party No. 2 (the non-party's subscription to the above insurance contract) and the non-party's subscription to the above insurance contract by the non-party No. 1 and the non-party No. 2 (the non-party's subscription to the insurance contract was rejected on the second half of the insurance contract, the non-party's subscription to the above insurance contract would be rejected 10.
According to the above facts, the non-party, the insured of the above insurance contract, died before the consent of the defendant company, but the non-party had already paid the first insurance premium to the defendant company, so the plaintiff, the beneficiary of the above insurance contract, pursuant to the above standardized terms and conditions, acquired a claim for payment of KRW 100,000,000 from the defendant company on February 27, 198, which is the date of the above insurance accident
B. Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription
With respect to the plaintiff's claim for the payment of the above insurance money, since the defendant asserted that the short-term extinctive prescription period under the Commercial Act has expired two years after the date of the occurrence of the above insurance accident, it is clear that the date of the lawsuit in this case was two years after the expiration of the prescription period under Article 62 of the Commercial Act from February 27, 1988, which is the date of the above insurance accident. Thus, the defendant's defense pointing this out has merit.
The Plaintiff’s legal representative knew the fact that the right to claim was extinguished by the Defendant Company on February 27, 1991 when the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the right to claim was purchased by the said Electric interest, and was notified that he would receive KRW 28,000 for the effective refund, and thus, the Defendant Company would run from the time when the Defendant Company notified the Plaintiff of the foregoing fact. However, the Plaintiff’s legal representative did not know the existence of the right or the possibility of exercising the right did not interfere with the progress of the statute of limitations. Therefore, the above assertion is without merit without any need to further examine it.
In other words, according to Article 658 of the Commercial Act, the Plaintiff’s attorney argues that the payment of the insurance amount should be made within 10 days from the date of receipt of the notification of occurrence of the insured event under Article 657(1) of the Commercial Act, if there is no agreed period for the payment of the insurance amount, and that the extinctive prescription does not run because the Plaintiff did not notify the above. However, the obligation to notify the occurrence of an accident to the policyholder or the insured is a prerequisite for claiming the insurance amount, and thus, the insurer is not liable for delay of the obligation to pay the insurance amount if he neglected to do so. Such notification obligation does not affect the interruption of the extinctive prescription of the insurance
2. Determination as to the claim for damages
According to the standard terms and conditions of life insurance, the defendant company issued an insurance policy as a notice of acceptance when there is an application for the insurance, and did not pay the insurance premium in writing if the policyholder did not pay it. Thus, the defendant company did not perform it. Thus, the defendant company asserts that the above insurance claim is extinguished by prescription because the plaintiff did not exercise the above insurance claim without knowing the non-party's insurance coverage and did not exercise it. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages equivalent to the above insurance amount.
Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit because the non-party, who subscribed to the above insurance contract through the non-party 1's transmission of the insurance solicitor of the defendant company, and paid the first insurance premium, but the defendant company died before the insurance policy was delivered by his/her declaration of consent to the above subscription and caused the insurance claim as an insurance accident before his/her acceptance. Thus, according to the above facts acknowledged, it cannot be said that the defendant company has a duty to again express his/her consent to the above insurance contract or to notify the insurance premium payment peremptory notice or effective notice. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed as without merit, and the costs of lawsuit shall be borne as per Disposition by applying Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Judges Dok-young (Presiding Judge)