logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.09.07 2016가단29477
부당이득금반환
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

Basic Facts

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Daejeon District Court 2013Gahap3969 against C for the claim for construction price.

On July 18, 2013, the above court rendered a judgment that “C shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 109,000,000 and its delay damages,” and the above judgment became final and conclusive on September 10, 2013.

B. Meanwhile, on November 20, 1993, C entered into a pension insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with the Korea Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Life Insurance Co., Ltd. at the time”) on November 20, 1993 with the beneficiary at maturity C, and the beneficiary at maturity.

On July 24, 2009, C changed the name of the policyholder and beneficiary of the insurance contract of this case from C to the defendant.

C. On April 18, 2014, the Defendant cancelled the instant insurance contract, and received KRW 30,008,548 as the refund upon cancellation of the hanok life.

On the other hand, C was declared bankrupt on October 28, 2013 by Seoul Central District Court 2013Hadan6782, and the bankruptcy procedure was abolished on May 29, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff's assertion of Gap's Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 7 and Eul's No. 6 (including a serial number), as a whole, changed the status of the policyholder of the insurance contract of this case and the beneficiary of the insurance contract of this case to the defendant for the purpose of evading the creditor's compulsory execution. Such act is null and void against good morals and other social order.

Therefore, the defendant, as a return of unjust enrichment, is obligated to pay C the cancellation refund of the insurance contract of this case received by the defendant, 30,008,548 won, and interest or delay damages thereon. The plaintiff seeks payment of the above amount to the defendant on behalf of C.

Judgment

A. An act of anti-social order invalidated under Article 103 of the Civil Act is not only in violation of good morals and other social order.

arrow