logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.11.13 2014구합71993
과징금 부과처분 등 취소청구
Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Article 00 (Insurance Accidents for which No Insurance Money is paid) (1) The Company may terminate this special agreement simultaneously with the failure to pay insurance money when any of the following events occurs when the cause for the payment of insurance money occurs:

1. Where an insured person intentionally damages himself/herself, however, he/she shall not commit suicide or commit an act after two years from the date of commencement of the contract guarantee (the date of commencement).

From August 22, 2013 to September 27, 2013, the Governor of the Financial Supervisory Service conducted a regular comprehensive inspection of the Plaintiff.

As a result, attached Table 1, "the unpaid portion of the insurance proceeds as a result of the comprehensive inspection," which was sold by the Plaintiff from May 14, 2001 to November 25, 2007, under the terms and conditions of the special agreement for compensation for non-accident (hereinafter "the special agreement of this case") of the insurance contract.

of the terms and conditions specified below in this case:

(i)In the case of an insured incident for which no insurance money is paid, the date of commencement of the liability (hereinafter referred to as "related accident after the lapse of two years from the date of commencement of the security").

The insurance money of this case is less than the insurance money of this case, except in the case.

'Non-payment of the insurance proceeds of this case' is 'non-payment of the insurance proceeds of this case'.

) The Insurance Business Act considers that it constitutes a business that violates the provisions of Article 127-3 (Standard Terms and Conditions) of the Insurance Business Act, and recommended the imposition of penalty surcharges on the Defendant Financial Services Commission.

B. On August 28, 2014, the Defendant Financial Services Commission: (a) applied Article 196(1)9 of the Insurance Business Act to the Plaintiff for the unpaid insurance proceeds during the period from January 24, 2011 to September 13, 2013, for which the said provision was enforced on the ground that the non-explosible administrator of the instant insurance proceeds violated Article 127-3 of the Insurance Business Act; and (b) the penalty surcharge of the instant case is below KRW 49,00,000,000, which is the penalty surcharge of the instant case.

(b) include:

arrow