logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.06.12 2018나2064413
사해행위취소
Text

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment is that the court of first instance 5th and 8th of the judgment “this court” is dismissed as “the court of first instance,” and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance excluding adding the following 2. additional determination as to the allegations emphasized by the Defendants in this court. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

(The grounds for appeal by the defendants are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court, and the fact-finding and decision in the first instance court are justified even if the evidence submitted in the first instance court was presented to this court.

A. Defendant Company, C, D, etc.’s assertion by the Defendants did not have any separate explanation as to Article 5 (Prior Indemnity) of the instant insurance contract. Thus, the said provision is null and void in violation of the duty to explain under the Terms and Conditions Act.

Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot exercise a prior right to indemnity under Article 5 of the instant insurance contract.

B. In general, the relevant legal principles and the insurer and the person engaged in the conclusion or solicitation of insurance contracts are obliged to specify and explain the important contents of the insurance contract, such as the content of the insurance product, the insurance premium rate system, and changes in the entries in the written subscription for insurance, which are contained in the insurance contract, when the insurer concludes the insurance contract in violation of such duty to specify and explain the terms and conditions, it cannot be asserted as the content of the terms and conditions as the content of the insurance contract. However, the insurer’s recognition of such duty to explain and explain the terms and conditions lies in the insurer’s failure to know that the contents of the terms and conditions are important matters of the contract, which are stipulated in the terms and conditions, and thus, it is a matter prescribed in the insurance contract.

arrow