beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.
Purport of claim and appeal
(b).
Reasons
The court's explanation of this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts which are either written or additionally determined as to this case. Thus, this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is either written or additionally determined, is deleted from 16th to 18th. The plaintiff withdrawn this part of the appeal at the court of first instance
The 18th to 19th of the first instance court's 18th of the first instance court's 18th to 19th of the same
A. “Economic damage caused by nonperformance of obligations or tort refers to the difference between the property status and the current property status that existed in the absence of nonperformance of obligations or tort (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Da83991, May 26, 201; 91Da33070, Jun. 23, 1992). The Defendant’s mistake pointed out by the Plaintiff in the instant case was unable to conclude a reinsurance contract with a reinsurance company with certain credit rating or financial stability, as originally planned in the course of performing the instant reinsurance contract as an executive secretary company’s failure to perform the duty of care, and thus, even if the Defendant concluded a reinsurance contract with a Rodrid, which was originally scheduled to perform the duty of care, or with another reinsurance company with adequate credit rating or financial stability, the Plaintiff cannot be exempt from the obligation to pay the insurance proceeds due to the occurrence of an accident in this case.
Therefore, there is no proximate causal relation between the defendant's mistake alleged by the plaintiff and the damage equivalent to the raw insurance money paid by the plaintiff.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff did not conclude a reinsurance contract with a reinsurance company with excellent credit rating.