logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2019.06.26 2018가합23601
보험계약 무효 확인 청구
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Amount of subscription fees for the remaining disability of less than 80% due to an injury resulting from a basic contract or a failure to pay the subscription amount (40 million won) in the event of a death or a failure to pay the remaining disability of not less than 80% x the relevant amount of payment rate;

A. On November 22, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract with the Defendant as the insured (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”). The product security provisions of the instant insurance contract and the ordinary terms and conditions of the instant insurance contract (hereinafter “instant terms and conditions”) relating to the validity of the contract after compensation for losses are as follows.

[Ordinary Terms and Conditions] Article 8 (Contract after Compensation for Damages) (1) When a company pays an insurance money for general ex post facto disability to one accident, the amount of insurance coverage for the remainder of the insurance period shall not be reduced, and when the insurance money for death or ex post facto disability is paid, this contract shall be terminated from the time when the cause of the damage occurs.

B. Around December 4, 2016, the Plaintiff suffered from a high climatic disorder due to a traffic accident, and in accordance with the instant insurance contract, the Plaintiff received at least 80% of the insurance proceeds of the high climatic disability from the Defendant, and received KRW 40 million.

C. On August 24, 2017, the Defendant terminated the instant insurance contract pursuant to Article 8 of the instant Terms and Conditions, and around that time, the Defendant’s declaration of intent to terminate the contract reached the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1, 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant did not perform its duty to explain Article 8 of the Terms and Conditions at the time of entering into the instant insurance contract, and therefore, Article 8 of the Terms and Conditions of this case cannot be asserted as the content of the instant insurance contract pursuant to Article 3 of the Act on the Regulation of Terms

B. Article 8 of the Terms and Conditions of this case is likely to put customers at an unreasonable disadvantage by relaxing the requirements for the exercise of the right of rescission, or an enterpriser without good cause.

arrow