logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.09.23 2014가단6995
손해배상
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant, by deceiving the Plaintiff, caused the Plaintiff to enter into a new insurance contract that is unaware of the Plaintiff, and the insurance premium paid by the Plaintiff to be paid as the insurance premium for a new insurance contract, invalidated by the unpaid insurance premium, thereby causing damage equivalent to the insurance premium paid for the insurance contract invalidated to the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the insurance premium paid to the Plaintiff (i.e., total insurance premium of KRW 57,263,595 - total insurance premium of KRW 16,259,154 - the insurance premium that is refunded by the Kant Life Insurance Co., Ltd. - KRW 2,85,160).

B. The Defendant, as an insurance solicitor responsible for guaranteeing the Plaintiff’s future, has the Plaintiff enter into an insurance contract with up to 30 items to only raise the performance of one’s insurance contract in breach of trust, and thereby has suffered damages equivalent to the amount of the insurance premium paid to the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the insurance premium to be refunded to the Plaintiff (i.e., total insurance premium of KRW 57,263,595 - total insurance premium of KRW 57,259,154 - Insurance premium to be refunded to the Youngyang Life Insurance Co., Ltd. - KRW 2,85,160).

shall be liable to compensate for the loss.

2. Determination:

A. First, as to whether the Defendant deceivings the Plaintiff to enter into a new insurance contract, each of the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 10 through 15 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) is insufficient to recognize the above assertion of the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, in full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 18 and the fact-finding results in this Court's fact-finding, all of the subscription forms directly signed by the plaintiff is stated as "application form for insurance contract" and "new contract", and the plaintiff after the conclusion of the insurance contract.

arrow