logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2015.05.14 2013다77638
보험금
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. If the policyholder or the insured fails to give notice of material facts intentionally or by gross negligence at the time of the insurance contract, or makes a false notice, the insurer may terminate the contract within one month from the date on which he/she becomes aware of such fact, and within three years from the date of the conclusion

(Article 651 of the Commercial Act). The right to terminate the insurance contract of this case is a formation right, and the period of the exercise is a exclusion period, and whether the exclusion period has lapsed is a matter of ex officio investigation by the court. Thus, even if there is no party's assertion, the court shall investigate and determine it ex officio. The parties did not assert the limit

Even if the court of final appeal newly asserts and establishes this, it can be asserted and proved in the final appeal.

(2) In the event of termination on the ground of a breach of duty of disclosure in a guarantee insurance contract for another person, which is a guarantee insurance contract for the performance of obligation by an insurer, for the performance of obligation by an insurer, the insurer shall express his/her intention of termination to the other party to the contract or his/her heir (or his/her agent) within the exclusion period, and in the absence of special circumstances, such as otherwise stipulated in the insurance contract, the declaration of termination to the beneficiary of the insurance proceeds to the beneficiary of the insurance proceeds shall not be effective only by the mere fact that the insurer expresses his/her intention of termination to the beneficiary of the insurance proceeds.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Meu2973, Feb. 14, 1989; 2000Da19281, Nov. 8, 2012). 2. The lower court: (a) (i) A Incorporated Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Cex”) and the Plaintiff on April 4, 2008.

arrow