logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 광주고등법원 2018.06.22 2016나15159
보험금
Text

1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall consist of a principal lawsuit and a counterclaim.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 27, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a mutual aid agreement with the Defendant and the Plaintiff’s husband B as the beneficiary (hereinafter “instant mutual aid agreement”). The daily amount of hospitalization allowances under the instant mutual aid agreement is KRW 20,000, and the daily amount of injury hospitalization allowances is KRW 20,000, and KRW 40,000 after four days from the first date of hospitalization.

B. B, after entering into the instant mutual aid agreement, was hospitalized for 853 days from November 21, 201 to 36 days from the date of entering into the instant mutual aid agreement, as shown in attached Table 2, including cases where the I Hospital was hospitalized for pulmonary urine and urology, and was conducted on a total of 47 occasions from January 4, 2016. The Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff KRW 620,730,000 among the mutual aid funds calculated under the instant mutual aid agreement during the period of hospitalization, and paid KRW 20,680,000 for the remainder.

C. From July 7, 2003 to November 29, 2010, the Plaintiff or B concluded each insurance contract with the Plaintiff and B’s children, andO as the insured in the attached Table 3, as shown in the attached Table 3, with the exception of the instant mutual aid contract. The monthly insurance premium under each of the above insurance contracts and the insurance amount the Plaintiff received from the insurance company under each of the above insurance contracts are as listed in the corresponding column in the attached Table 3.

The Plaintiff reported the base amount of value-added tax at KRW 6,00,000 for the first year of 2010, but did not report the value-added tax base from February 2, 2010 to February 2012.

In addition, in 2010, the Plaintiff reported the amount of global income tax of KRW 6,050,000, and the amount of income of KRW 635,000, but did not report the amount of global income tax from 2011 to 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, 6, 10 and 10, and insurance companies of the court of first instance.

arrow