logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전고등법원 2019.07.25 2019나10208
보험금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning is that the court has the same part of the "1. Facts recognized" as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, the relevant part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Deceased died of an external factor, not a disease or physical formative factor, as he/she was divingd in a hot room under the influence of drinking.

Although the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 250,000,000 for the general injury death benefit in accordance with the instant insurance contract, the Defendant paid only KRW 80,000,000,00. As such, the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff who acquired the Plaintiff’s inheritance portion of the insurance benefit of H, his father’s father, as his father, to the remainder of KRW 170,000,000, after deducting the amount already paid from the

B. 1) Under the premise of determination, the term “overbound accident” among the “overgoing accident”, which is the requirement of an insurance accident under the insurance contract, means that the cause of the injury or death is all caused by external factors, not due to the physical defect of the insured, i.e., disease or physical physical factors. As to the causal relationship between the external nature of such accident and the result of injury or death, the claimant for insurance money bears the burden of proof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Da2814, Oct. 13, 1998; 2001Da27579, Aug. 21, 2001). Meanwhile, the causal relationship in civil disputes is not a medical and natural causal relationship, but a social and legal causal relationship, and thus, the causal relationship is not necessarily clearly proven in medical and natural science, and it is likewise identical to the judgment of whether the deceased was “overgoing accident” as provided for in the insurance contract, or whether the causal relationship was determined by the court.

arrow