1. The Defendant’s KRW 36,110,00 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from March 1, 2013 to January 12, 2016, and the following.

1. The plaintiff is the owner of BMW 335i vehicle, and the defendant is an insurance company.

On October 18, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract including a contract for self-vehicle damage security that pays the insurance money after adding the amount of damages incurred to the automobile when the Defendant and the vehicle are damaged due to a traffic accident, etc. and deducting the amount of the self-paid expense stated in the insurance policy.

The value of a vehicle under a security contract for self-vehicle damage concluded by the plaintiff and the defendant is 36,110,000 won, and the value of an additional part is 4,50,000 won.

When the defendant receives documents concerning the claim for insurance money, the terms and conditions stipulate that the insurance amount to be paid without delay shall be paid within seven days from the fixed date.

Plaintiff

On February 4, 2013, her husband C driven the above vehicle on February 4, 2013, an accident occurred where the brooms were cut off from the two-lanes of brooms in the border of the Taesung-gu Sungdong (hereinafter “instant accident”).

In the instant accident, BMW 335i Vehicle Repair Costs exceed 36,110,000 won in the automobile value under the insurance contract, and the said vehicle is under custody in the automobile repair business from the time of the instant accident to the present day.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 7 (including virtual numbers), the whole purport of the pleading.

2. Determination

A. As to the Plaintiff’s claim for insurance money, the Defendant is exempt from liability inasmuch as the Defendant intentionally paid the Plaintiff’s claim, which is a vehicle driver, and pursuant to Article 669(4) of the Commercial Act, if the insured amount substantially exceeds the subject value of the insurance contract, the contract was null and void when the contract was concluded by the policyholder’s fraud, and the said vehicle had already been involved in the accident before the import, and even when the accident occurred in 2011, the Plaintiff did not notify it, and 4.5 million won by deceiving the Plaintiff that he installed the wheelchairs not installed on the vehicle.