(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.10.27 2017나1178 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.10.27 2017나1178

보상금 반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On July 28, 201, the Newanan-gun entered into a storm and flood insurance contract between the Plaintiff, the insured, and the Plaintiff from October 1, 201 to October 24, 201, with the period of insurance from October 24, 2011 to October 24, 201, with the purport of compensating for damage, etc. to the housing located in the former, Newan-gun, Seoul, and one parcel of land (hereinafter “instant housing”).

(hereinafter “instant insurance contract”). (b)

In October 2012, the Defendant received KRW 12,00,000,000 insurance money with respect to the damage to the instant housing caused by typhoons and scambenenen events that occurred around August 2012 from the Eastern Fire.

C. The insured of the instant insurance contract is the Plaintiff, and the person who shared the insurance premium is the Plaintiff, and the person who was treated as the owner of the instant housing in the instant insurance contract is the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant should return to the Plaintiff the above insurance amount of KRW 12,00,000 and damages for delay thereof as unjust enrichment.

2. As alleged by the Plaintiff, even if the Defendant received the above insurance money from the East Fire, the Plaintiff may claim against the East Fire for the payment of the above insurance money, apart from the fact that the above insurance money received by the Defendant cannot be deemed as unjust enrichment in relation to the relationship with the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

(A) As a result of the fact-finding on the fire in the court of first instance and the fact-finding on the same part of the court of first instance, the defendant seems to have received the above insurance money from the same part of the fire as the owner of the house of this case in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings. 3. The conclusion of the judgment is as follows.

The judgment of the first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 목포지원 2018.09.19 2017가단7017

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2021.02.05 2020가단71600

-광주지방법원목포지원 2017.06.14 2016가단9467

-광주고등법원 2017.09.06 2016나14279

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.24 2015나16582