보험에관한 소송
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of invalidation against Defendant B is revoked.
2. The plaintiff's remainder.
1. In addition to the fact that “from February 30, 2013 to February 20, 2013” as “from February 20, 2013,” the reasoning of the court’s explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for invalidation confirmation against Defendant B among the judgment of the first instance
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful to dismiss the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of invalidity of the instant insurance contract against Defendant B, which was not claimed by the Plaintiff in the first instance trial, even though the Plaintiff merely sought confirmation of invalidity of the instant insurance contract only against Defendant A, but did not seek separate confirmation of invalidity of the instant insurance contract against Defendant B.
B. 1) The court of first instance did not render a judgment on any matter not requested by the parties (Article 203(2) of the Civil Procedure Act). The court held that the claim for confirmation of invalidity of the insurance contract of this case against the defendant A who is the policyholder and the claim for confirmation of invalidity of the insurance contract of this case against the defendant B was combined, and held that the claim for confirmation of invalidity of the insurance contract of this case against the
3 In the case of a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of a contract, it is common that one of the parties to the contract files a lawsuit against the other party, unless there are special circumstances.
However, according to the records of this case, the complaint of this case stated that "the entry of the insurance contract between the plaintiff and the defendant A in the indication of the insurance contract is invalid" as the purport of the part seeking confirmation of nullity of the insurance contract of this case, and there is no fact that the plaintiff and his legal representative asserted that they sought confirmation of nullity of the insurance contract of this case against the defendant B by the date of closing argument of the first instance court.
In addition, the Plaintiff stated in the trial on March 19, 2018.