logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원순천지원 2016.01.28 2015가단76213
보험에관한 소송
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On March 22, 2009, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded an insurance contract with the Defendant as the insured on March 22, 2009, indicated in the attached Form that guarantees the amount of KRW 50,000 per day of hospitalization of disease (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

② From April 27, 2009 to August 19, 2015, the Defendant hospitalized 60 times in total for 905 days and claimed insurance money to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff paid KRW 78,906,564 in total due to the day of hospitalization, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant insurance contract was concluded by the Defendant for the purpose of unfairly acquiring insurance proceeds through multiple insurance contracts is null and void as acts contrary to good morals and social order stipulated in Article 103 of the Civil Act. The Defendant is obligated to return the insurance proceeds received from the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

3. Determination

A. Where a policyholder concludes an insurance contract for the purpose of unjust acquisition of insurance money through a large number of insurance contracts, the payment of insurance money under an insurance contract concluded for this purpose would be in deviation from social reasonableness by encouraging speculative spirit to gain unjust profits by abusing the insurance contract, and also would undermine the purpose of the insurance system, such as reasonable diversification of risks, destroying the contingentness of risks, and causing the sacrifice of the large number of subscribers, thereby impairing the foundation of the insurance system. Thus, such insurance contract is null and void against good morals and other social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act.

On the other hand, even if there is no evidence to directly recognize that the policyholder has concluded multiple insurance contracts for the purpose of illegally acquiring the insurance proceeds, the policyholder's occupation and property status and multiple insurance contracts are concluded.

arrow