logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.11.23 2016나2059813
보험에관한 소송
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 reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as follows, except for the addition of the following '2. Additional Judgment' as to the assertion that the plaintiff added in the trial of the court of first instance, thereby citing this case in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff entered into the instant termination agreement with the insurance solicitor B, entrusted by the Defendant, stating that “If the Defendant returned the paid-in premium to B’s account, he would settle the amount equivalent to the premium paid by the Plaintiff, and such motive became the content of the instant termination agreement by explicitly or implicitly indicating at the time of the instant termination agreement. However, the Plaintiff did not receive a refund of the amount equivalent to the premium paid by the Plaintiff from B. Accordingly, this constitutes an error in an important part, and thus, the termination agreement of the instant termination agreement is revoked on the premise or condition that the Defendant returned the paid-in premium to B.

However, the Defendant did not actually refund the paid-in premium to B, and the premise or condition was not fulfilled.

Therefore, the termination agreement of this case, including the rejection agreement, should be null and void or cancelled.

3) The defendant's insurance agency or insurance solicitor B of the defendant's insurance agency or insurance solicitor B of the insurance contract of this case caused damage to the plaintiff while soliciting each of the insurance contracts of this case (liability insurance company entrusted with the solicitation), and not only is liable for compensating for such damage (liability insurance company under Article 102 and Article 102 of the Insurance Business Act)

Provided, That the insurance company is entrusting the insurance solicitors or insurance agencies with the insurance solicitation.

arrow