(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.06.27 2016나2070537

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.06.27 2016나2070537

손해배상(기)

Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act citing the judgment of the court of first instance

However, on the other hand, the two pages 17 to 18 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be used as “within June 2014,” and the judgment on the allegations made by the plaintiff and the defendant in this court shall be added as follows.

2. Additional determination

A. At the time of entering into the instant insurance contract, no provision exists to require an insurance company to specify "matters relating to early withdrawal" or "standards for determining excessive withdrawal" in an insurance prospectus or to explain to policyholders at the time of entering into the instant insurance contract. Since 2004, the Financial Supervisory Service did not state "standards for determining excessive withdrawal" in the product summary and other guide materials until the date of entering into the instant insurance contract. It is difficult to see that the explanation of matters relating to early withdrawal was affected the conclusion of the Plaintiff’s insurance contract in light of the developments leading up to the conclusion of the instant insurance contract, and it is reasonable to view that "standards for determining excessive withdrawal" is an important matter of the instant insurance contract, which is subject to the duty to explain in light of the evidence and the purport of entry and the purport of the instant insurance contract, and the following factors can be seen as being the subject of the duty to explain in light of the aforementioned circumstances.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

(1) Insurance companies and insurance solicitors' obligations under related Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Insurance Business Act.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

-보험업법

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2020.10.14 2018나321819

-인천지방법원 2018.10.25 2018가단231627

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.9.21. 선고 2015가합506647 판결

-대법원 2014. 10. 27. 선고 2012다22242 판결

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.11 2015나73547