Whether or not a policyholder can be deemed to have agreed on an insurance contract solely on the fact that a policyholder received the already paid premium, which has been sent together with the notice of unilateral termination of the insurance contract.

Even if the policyholder received the returned paid premiums together with the notice of unilateral termination of the insurance contract by the insurance company, the insurance contract between the parties can not be considered to have been agreed.

Article 651 of the Commercial Act

Supreme Court Decision 73Da823 delivered on December 26, 1973

Plaintiff

Defendant Insurance Corporation

Gwangju District Court of the first instance (71 Ghana393)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,517,600 won with 5% interest per annum from the next day from the next day of service to the next day of service to the full payment.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

A provisional execution may be effected only under the above paragraph (1).

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

On December 26, 1969, when the plaintiff entered into a livelihood stabilization insurance contract with the non-party 1 as the insured between the defendant company and the non-party 1 as the plaintiff at the maturity or upon the death of the beneficiary, the insurance money shall be two million won and twenty-six thousand won per month for five years, respectively. The contract date shall be five years after the maturity of the contract on December 26, 1969, and the contract date shall be December 25, 1974, five years after the lapse of the contract. Thus, the plaintiff paid 18 times as the insurance premium between December 26, 1969 and May 26, 1971, and the fact that the non-party 1 as the insured died on June 25, 1971 that the non-party 1 as the beneficiary of the insurance contract shall not be disputed between the parties, and the non-party 2 as the beneficiary of the insurance contract shall not be acknowledged as the beneficiary of the insurance contract after the lapse of the insurance period of the first half or more.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the full amount of the insurance money to the plaintiff unless there are special circumstances. The defendant's attorney, the insured, was the patient suffering from the second typosis and disguised disorder before the conclusion of the insurance contract, so the plaintiff had already been obligated to notify the defendant company at the time of concluding the contract, and thus the defendant company, which became aware of the above circumstances around August 1971, notified the plaintiff of this case on the ground of September 10 of the same year. Thus, the defendant company did not have the obligation to pay the insurance money under Article 20 of the insurance clauses of the defendant company 651 of the Commercial Act. Thus, the defendant company first argued that the above deceased's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's 4 and 7 were the patient with the second typism and the above witness's testimony of the court below 3, the non-party 4 and the non-party 5's non-party 4's non-party 2's non-party 2's defendant's testimony and the above defendant 4's counter-party 4's allegation.

In this case, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1,517,600 won after deducting the amount of KRW 482,400,00 from the amount of insurance money paid to the plaintiff 2 million won, and damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum from December 5, 1971 to the full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for the main lawsuit is justified and the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party.

Judges Choi Yong-gu (Presiding Judge)