beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.02.09 2017나2058947

보험금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

Reasons

1. The court's explanation concerning this case is the same as the statement of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following parts written or added. As such, the court's explanation concerning this case shall be cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

【Supplementary or additional parts of the judgment of the court of first instance” between the 5th and 5th of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be subject to the following measures:

In addition, “the fact that the “inundation” has been translated into a flood,” which is included in the translation of the terms and conditions of the instant insurance contract (No. 3-2), and “the Plaintiff is translated into a flood,” and “the fact that the fiveth 16th 16th 16th 1 of the judgment of the first instance court is stipulated” and “the instant vessel cannot be deemed to have been in the sea because it was not in the state of free learning because the instant vessel was faced with the inner wall and did not have any condition of free learning.”

The provisions of the 5th through 20th of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be applied as follows: "In addition, it does not fall under the damage of the government supply equipment."

또한 이 사건 사고 발생의 지배적 원인 또는 근인(proximate cause, 近因)은 담보위험인 ‘폭풍(storm)’이고 해수유입은 폭풍에 따라 이 사건 사고가 발생하기까지의 과정이나 결과에 불과할 뿐 이 사건 사고 발생의 유일하거나 결정적인 원인으로 볼 수 없으므로, 이 사건 사고는 특별면책사유인 ‘해상의 위험’에 해당하지 않는다.

The following shall be added between "III" and "the insurance contract of this case" in Part 7 of the judgment of the first instance.

At the time of the instant accident, the so-called “sea wall process” was carried out in a fixed state on the inner wall as seen above, and the instant vessel was not “sea” solely on the ground that such a fixed state was fixed.