beta
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.06.14 2014가단116128

보험에관한 소송

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Conclusion of an insurance contract and payment of insurance proceeds;

A. On April 12, 2004, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded an insurance contract listed in the annexed insurance list.

(hereinafter) The insurance contract of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "insurance contract of this case"). The insurance contract provides that the insurance premium already paid shall be paid if the defendant is alive by the maturity, and 20 million won shall be paid only once for each case when the diagnosis of first cerebrovascular and cerebrovascular or acute chronological chronology becomes final and conclusive, and if the defendant is hospitalized for at least four days for the direct purpose of treatment of diseases, 30,000 won per day exceeding 120 days shall be paid.

B. Under the above insurance contract, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant totaling KRW 64,795,712 as the hospitalization allowance from March 9, 2006 to February 5, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. In light of the content of the entire insurance contract, monthly insurance premium, the Defendant’s economic situation, the timing and amount of the Defendant’s receipt of insurance money from each insurance company after each insurance contract, the name of the Defendant at the time of hospitalization or treatment, etc., the instant insurance contract is concluded by the Defendant for the purpose of acquiring insurance money, and is null and void in violation of good morals and other social order under Article 103 of

Furthermore, 64,795,712 won of the above insurance money that the plaintiff paid to the defendant is not a legal ground, and thus the return is sought.

B. The Defendant became an economic condition for paying each insurance premium, and only repeats hospitalization and discharge due to traffic accidents, not the instant insurance contract for the purpose of deceiving insurance money.

The insurance contract of this case is not legally concluded, and thus, it does not constitute unjust enrichment.

3. Determination

A. Supreme Court precedents have concluded insurance proceeds through multiple insurance contracts.

참조조문