logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 2020.04.29 2019나54637
부당이득금
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 main grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance is examined as additional evidence submitted in this court, the recognition of facts in the court of first instance and the judgment are justified.

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for amendments to the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary parts] The 4th 8th 9th 8th 9th m, 4th 10th m, 20th m, and 20th m, “E Co., Ltd.” and the 6th m 2nd m, “F Co., Ltd.” shall be incorporated into “F

6 The 10th parallels shall be added to the following and 11th parallels. 6th parallels shall be added to 5th parallels.

【No. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant insurance contract was null and void pursuant to Article 103 of the Civil Act, considering the circumstances as seen earlier, the Defendant and C by deceiving the Plaintiff to enter into the instant insurance contract by deceiving the Plaintiff for the purpose of deceiving the Plaintiff and deceiving the insurance money, and, even if it is difficult to deem that there was a need for hospitalized treatment, such as the pathical chronum, it is difficult to deem that the instant insurance contract was null and void pursuant to Article 103 of the Civil Act. However, considering the aforementioned circumstances, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant and C had concluded the instant insurance contract by deceiving the Plaintiff for the purpose of defrauding the insurance money or hospitalized in excess of the adequate period of hospitalized treatment after receiving the need for hospitalization. Even if there were some unnecessary parts during the instant

2. Conclusion, the first instance judgment is justifiable.

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

arrow