logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2019.11.07 2018가단110243
채무부존재확인
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 “F restaurant” (hereinafter “F restaurant”) was a restaurant that Defendant B started to operate on or around June 2014 by leasing the D apartment and the 2nd floor E of the Changwon-si, Changwon-si, Sungwon-si, and Defendant B was a business owner. Defendant B’s father C is the actual operator.

B. On November 28, 2017, Defendant B concluded an insurance contract with the Plaintiff on November 28, 2017 with the content of compensating for losses caused by fire between November 28, 2017 and November 28, 2020.

(hereinafter “instant insurance”). C.

On December 5, 2017, around 01:15, at the instant restaurant, there was a fire due to the spread of combustion caused by putting gas fire, which Defendant C puts up to the gas string, immediately adjacent to the gas string, to the gas string, which was put up to the gas string, and then moved to the direction of the garbage string down below the gas string.

(hereinafter “instant fire”). D.

The Defendants, based on the instant insurance, claimed KRW 75 million for the insurance money for the damage caused by the instant fire.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 4 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion ① The instant fire was caused by intentional fire-prevention by an insurance contractor, etc.

(2) The insurance contract of this case was concluded with "the purpose of illegally acquiring the insurance money" as "the purpose of illegally acquiring the insurance money".

Therefore, it is not sufficient to recognize that the fire of this case was caused by intentional fire prevention, or that the insurance of this case was concluded for the purpose of illegal acquisition only with the entries and images of the judgment 103.3. 3. The plaintiff is not obliged to pay the insurance money, since the above insurance contract is null and void in violation of good morals and other social order stipulated in Article 103 of the Civil Code.

arrow