logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.19 2017가합500933
보험에관한 소송
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Co., Ltd.”) (hereinafter “Plaintiff Co., Ltd.”) was established for the purpose of manufacturing air compression machines. The Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Co., Ltd.”) died, who was the representative director of the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. and the husband of the Plaintiff Co., Ltd., and Plaintiff B was the representative director of the Plaintiff Co., Ltd

B. On August 26, 2013, the Plaintiff Company entered into each insurance contract with the Defendant through D, an insurance solicitor belonging to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

(2) The Plaintiff Company concluded a pension insurance contract with the Defendant on December 12, 2013 (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) through D, an insurance solicitor belonging to the Defendant, for which KRW 22,835,140 was claimed to have paid the Defendant the insurance premium of KRW 222,835,140. However, the Defendant did not submit any evidence to support the insurance premium of KRW 207,54,804, and the Defendant is the Plaintiff Company paid the insurance premium of KRW 207,54,804. As such, the Defendant paid the insurance premium of KRW 207,54,804.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

A. With respect to the Plaintiff Company’s claim 1 insurance contract of this case, D, the representative director of the Plaintiff Company, explained that the Plaintiff Company’s first insurance contract of this case constitutes a non-taxable product that has an intermediate function as savings-type product and is not taxed. The Plaintiff Company did not explain the fact that the Defendant’s project cost, etc. is deducted from the insurance premium paid by the Plaintiff Company. In fact, the Plaintiff Company’s first insurance contract of this case constitutes a life-type product and may incur losses and losses to the principal.

arrow