beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 50,000,000 as well as annual 6% from April 21, 2017 to September 4, 2017 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The facts as indicated in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as the cause of the claim, the fact that the professor B of the Seoul National University, who was entrusted with the autopsy of the deceased, sent the fact inquiry to the court as follows. The general injury death insurance amount of this case is KRW 50 million, and the insurance amount for physical damage is paid within three business days after the receipt of the documents claiming the insurance money. The fact that the time when the plaintiff claims the insurance money of this case to the defendant on April 17, 2017 does not conflict between the parties, or that the fact that the fact was about April 17, 2017 is either the evidence Nos. 1, 4, 6-1, 2, and 2, and 2, and the fact inquiry as to the university of the Seoul National University and the university of the Seoul National University, can be acknowledged
2. Determination
A. Comprehensively taking account of the above facts acknowledged as to the cause of the claim, it is reasonable to view that the deceased’s death constitutes an insurance accident under the attached Table’s insurance contract, in light of detailed physical attitude in the blood alcohol concentration of the deceased’s body.
Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay the death insurance money of this case and damages for delay to the plaintiff.
B. As to the judgment of the defendant's assertion, the defendant asserts that the insurance contract of this case is an insurance accident against the death of another person, and is null and void in violation of Article 731 of the Commercial Act, since the consent
However, according to the statement in Eul evidence No. 2, the insured column of the insurance subscription of this case is the name and signature of the "C", the name of the deceased, and the name and contact information of D, the insurance purchaser of this case, are recognized.
According to this, it is reasonable to view that D, an insurance solicitor at the time of the conclusion of the instant insurance contract, confirmed the deceased, who is the insured, and obtained his signature with the consent to enter into the instant insurance contract with the Plaintiff as the insured.
Therefore, it is true.