logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.03 2014가단5151338
손해배상(기)
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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff Company is an insurance company that engages in life insurance business, etc. in accordance with the Insurance Business Act, and I is an insurance solicitor of the Plaintiff Company from November 5, 2002 to February 2012.

B. The Defendants concluded an insurance contract with the Plaintiff Company through I as shown in the attached Table 2, and paid the premium, and the remaining Defendants except Defendant C terminated each insurance contract as listed in the attached Table 1, and received the termination refund from the Plaintiff Company.

(Attachment 2) The entire insurance contract is called “instant insurance contract”. Defendant E concluded three insurance contracts with the Plaintiff Company and terminated only one of them, and received the termination refund).

After that, from November 2013 to March 2014, the Defendants filed a civil petition with the Plaintiff Company that failed to hear the description of the goods from the insurance solicitor I at the time of entering into the instant insurance contract, and that the terms and conditions were not received. Accordingly, the Plaintiff Company accepted the foregoing civil petition and returned the Defendants the remaining amount after deducting the termination refund already paid from the total insurance premium paid by the Defendants as shown in the attached Table 1.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 to 18 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. At the time of the conclusion of the instant insurance contract, the Plaintiff Company believeded I’s written confirmation that it failed to perform its duty to explain and deliver a duplicate of the terms and conditions at the time of the conclusion of the instant insurance contract, and confirmed that it did not later have any content of the written confirmation.

Ultimately, even if there was no defect at the time of the conclusion of the instant insurance contract, the Plaintiff Company returned the total amount of the insurance premium paid due to the Defendants’ deception. Therefore, the Defendants were to pay the Plaintiff Company the insurance premium and the termination refund.

arrow