2017 Gohap 538495 Action for the confirmation of non-existence of a duty to pay premiums

1. A;

2. B

Plaintiff’s Attorney Park Jae-young

C Stock Company

Law Firm Chungcheong, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee]

April 26, 2018

May 17, 2018

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

It is confirmed that there is no insurance premium payment obligation after February 2, 2017 based on the insurance contract concluded on July 31, 2015 against the plaintiffs against the defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 31, 2015, Plaintiff B entered into a “D” contract with the Defendant, a stock company, the purpose of which is the life insurance business, etc., A, the Plaintiff’s mother of the Plaintiff B (hereinafter referred to as “instant insurance contract,” and its details are as indicated in the attached Table). Of the insurance terms and conditions applicable to the instant insurance contract (hereinafter referred to as “instant insurance terms and conditions”), those related to the instant case are as listed below.

○○ Article 2 (Definition of Terms) The definitions of terms used in the contract shall be as follows unless otherwise defined in other provisions of this Agreement.2. Disability: ○○ (Detailed Provisions for Payment of Insurance Money) ① During the payment period of the insurance premium, the insured shall be exempt from the payment of the subsequent insurance premium if he becomes disabled at least 50 per cent in addition to the rate of disability payment for the same reason other than the same disaster or accident in the table of disability classification (see attached Table 3)............... In the case of paragraph (1) of this Article, the term “if there are two or more disabilities due to one accident” means “if there are two or more disabilities due to the same accident or same reason other than the same accident”, the final rate of disability payment shall be determined by adding to the standards for determining disability level 3 in the table of disability classification (see attached Table 3).

B. On January 19, 2017, Plaintiff A entered into an anti-refluence on the left-hand satis (an operation to exchange only the part damaged by the government satise) and on January 26, 2017, respectively.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1, the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs

The plaintiff A received the left skne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free 60% of the disability payment rate, respectively, and added up 30% of the disability payment rate. As the insured becomes a disability-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-

B. Defendant

In order to be exempted from the payment of the plaintiffs' insurance premium under Article 4 (1) of the Clause of this case, the disability of the plaintiff A must occur the same cause other than the disaster. This is merely short of the same cause for the illness of each aftermath disability or the same cause for each afterth disability. "The cause for each disability should be the same cause for each disability and the cause is the same and the same opportunity arises." Thus, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.

3. Judgment

A. "When two or more disabilities have occurred due to the same cause other than a disaster" under Article 4 (1) of the Terms and Conditions of this case refers to cases where two or more disabilities have occurred due to the same disease, and where the relationship or causation between each disability and the disease is recognized. Therefore, it is reasonable interpretation that the occurrence does not include cases where the disease of each disability is identical, or even if the cause of each disability is identical, it does not cause the same opportunity.

B. According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments in evidence Nos. 4 and 5 as to the instant case, Plaintiff A may recognize the fact that Plaintiff A, on January 19, 2017, was subject to steropathy steropathization on the left-hand steropathitis, and on January 26, 2017, was issued the right-hand stepathy proviso on June 12, 2017, that the disability payment rate is 30%, respectively, and that Plaintiff E, who implemented each anti-stepathy, was performing the above operation with steropath, and was feed for the same reason other than disaster.

However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the description Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the oral argument as a result of the fact-finding reply to Gap's doctor E, i.e., ① the physical parts of the disability classification table of this case shall be deemed to be different physical parts, respectively. ② The doctor E's opinion stating that the cause of the disease is not attributable to the change of the emersion, rather than to determine the identity of the cause, and it is merely the fact that the cause of the disease is not attributable to the change of the emersion. ③ Meanwhile, there is no reason to view that the emerism from the specific part of the body is different from that of the plaintiff's emersion because there is no other ground to believe that the emerism occurred from the other part's emersion, or that there is no other reason to recognize that the emersion emersion causes the same emercy emersion from the other part's emersion disease.

Therefore, it is reasonable to aggregate the disability payment rate (30%) due to the Plaintiff’s left-hand slotism and the disability payment rate (30%) due to the right-hand slotism (30%). Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ above assertion is without merit, premised on the premise that Plaintiff A suffered disability higher than 50%.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, deputy judge and assistant judge.

Judges Lee Gyeong-soo

Judges Primarys

A person shall be appointed.