logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.06.18 2019가합1966
보험금등 수익자 지정확인의 소
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's lawsuits against the defendants are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion E maintained a de facto marital relationship with the Plaintiff, and died of the Plaintiff’s death on January 18, 2019.

(hereinafter “E.” On January 4, 2019, the Deceased prepared a testamentary gift to the Plaintiff on the deceased’s name. On January 17, 2019, the Deceased expressed his/her intent to legacy the deceased’s property to the Plaintiff while the witness H was present at the G Hospital’s clinic located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks to confirm that both Defendant B Co., Ltd., C Co., Ltd., and D Co., Ltd. and the right to benefit of bereaved family members of the National Pension Service, upon the death of the deceased,

2. Determination on the legitimacy of each of the lawsuits in this case

A. (1) With respect to each lawsuit against Defendant B, C, and D, the confirmation suit is permissible when the plaintiffs' rights or legal status currently unstable and dangerous, and the confirmation suit is the most effective and appropriate means to resolve the dispute.

A lawsuit for confirmation is not necessarily limited to legal relations between the plaintiff and the defendant, but can be subject to legal relations between the plaintiff and a third party or between third parties. However, in relation to legal relations, in order to eliminate risks or apprehensions that may arise in the plaintiff's rights or legal status, it is necessary to immediately determine the legal relations by using the confirmation judgment between the plaintiff and the defendant as the object of confirmation, and the benefit of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da208255, Mar. 15, 2017). In the instant case, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the pertinent insurance money against the said Defendants as a means of remedy for infringement of rights, and to seek confirmation against the said Defendants as the holder of the right to receive the insurance money.

arrow