보험에관한 소송
1. The judgment of the first instance, including the plaintiff's claim that has been changed in exchange at the trial, shall be changed as follows:
1. Scope of the judgment of this court and the basic facts;
A. Of the Plaintiff’s respective claims against the Defendants, the first instance court rejected the Plaintiff’s “request for restitution of unjust enrichment against Defendant A” and “request for confirmation of existence of an obligation against Defendant A” and dismissed all of the “request for confirmation of existence of an obligation against Defendant B and for restitution of unjust enrichment.”
Therefore, as seen earlier, only the Plaintiff filed an appeal against its lost part and changed the “request for confirmation of the existence of the obligation against the Defendant” to the “request for confirmation of the invalidity of the insurance contract.” As such, the scope of this court’s adjudication is limited to the “request for restitution of unjust enrichment against the Defendant B” and the “request for confirmation of the invalidity of the insurance contract” as changed in exchange from the trial of the first instance.
B. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the underlying facts is that the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment, except for the modification of some of the judgment of the first instance as follows. Therefore, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the
Then, the defendant A was a career soldier at the time of the conclusion of the first sentence.
Part IV, the first and second instances, “A person who was convicted of 8 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended sentence at the Seoul Central District Court on June 26, 2015,” appealed from August 20, 2014 (Seoul Central District Court 2012 Godan5743) to “A person who was sentenced to 2 years of suspended sentence from 8 months of imprisonment on June 26, 2015 (2014No3457) and was sentenced to 2 years of suspended sentence.”
2. The allegations by the parties and the judgment thereof
A. The purport of the parties’ assertion 1) The instant insurance contract concluded by the Plaintiff as of March 18, 2005 by Defendant A is null and void in violation of Article 103 of the Civil Act, and thereafter, a contract under which the contractor and beneficiary of the instant insurance contract were changed to Defendant B as of November 4, 2012 (hereinafter “instant change contract”).
In addition, the plaintiff is also null and void.