beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except where the defendant added a "additional Judgment" as to the assertion added by this court, and thus, it is identical to the ground of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this case in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. Additional determination
A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is that the instant insurance contract is an insurance contract covering the death of another person as an insured event and obtains the written consent of the other person at the time of concluding the insurance contract, and thus, is null and void since the consent
B. The insurance contract which covers the death of another person as an insured event is null and void as it violates the provisions of Article 731(1) of the Commercial Act, which is a mandatory law, without the consent of the other person who is the insured at the time of concluding the insurance contract (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da23690, Nov. 27, 1998). In this case, taking into account the following factors: (a) the statement of No. 4; and (b) the response of the order to submit financial transaction information to the Hansung Life Insurance Co., Ltd. of this court; and (c) the whole purport of oral argument as to the order to submit financial transaction information to the Hansung Life Insurance Co., Ltd. of this court, as the insured at the time of entering into the insurance contract of this case as an insured event, B may recognize the fact that it consented in writing by signing the insurance contract as the insured
3. If so, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 150,000,000 won and damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from January 14, 2016 to the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder of the claim is dismissed as there is no justifiable reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is so.