beta
(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.05.18 2016가단119420

보험금

Text

1. As to the accident in attached Form 1, the plaintiff against the defendant based on the insurance contract in attached Form 2.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 4, 2015, the Plaintiff, a corporation operating non-life insurance business, concluded an insurance contract in attached Form 2 with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

B. On October 26, 2015, the Defendant filed a claim for the payment of the insurance proceeds of the post-paid disability (hereinafter “instant accident”) with the Plaintiff on May 20, 2016, alleging that the Plaintiff suffered injury corresponding to the protruding escape certificate, no later than 5-6, in the event that the sports park located in the window of Changwon-si, Changwon-si, on board a bicycle and the sports park in which a gratization took place while driving the bicycle, lost the center of the bicycle, and transferred to the right side while driving the bicycle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant's injury caused by the accident of this case does not constitute an obstacle as stipulated in the terms and conditions of the insurance contract of this case except for light flocks or light flocks caused by the accident of this case, and therefore, there is no obligation to pay insurance money as stipulated in the insurance contract of this case. On the other hand, the defendant asserted that the defendant sustained injury due to the

B. On the other hand, in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of existence of a pecuniary obligation, if the plaintiff, who is the debtor, specified the first claim in order to deny the fact that the cause of the obligation occurred by specifying the first claim, the defendant, as the creditor, bears the burden of proving the facts constituting the elements of legal relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259, Mar. 13, 1998). As alleged by the defendant, there is no evidence to support that the defendant satisfied the requirements for the payment of the subsequent disability insurance proceeds stipulated in the insurance contract of this case due to the accident in

Therefore, there is no obligation to pay insurance money to the defendant as stipulated in the insurance contract of this case concerning the accident of this case.