(영문) 춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2014.6.26.선고 2013가합5339 판결

1. It is confirmed that each insurance claim against the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) based on each insurance contract listed in the separate sheet No. 2 with respect to the insurance accident listed in the separate sheet No. 1 does not exist.

2. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim is dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against all the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) by aggregating the principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

Purport of claim

The main office is as set forth in the Disposition.

Counterclaim: Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) 5 to Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”)

2.0 million won and 20% per annum from the day following the day of service of the counterclaim of this case to the day of complete payment.

D. The amount of money calculated at the rate is paid.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 22, 2010, the Defendant’s wife Co., Ltd. entered into an insurance contract on March 2, 2010 with the Plaintiff and the Defendant as the Defendant (hereinafter “instant driver’s insurance contract”). According to the instant driver’s insurance contract according to the special terms and conditions, in the event the insured dies due to an injury or suffers from an injury exceeding 80% of the payment rate set out in the Table of Disability Classification of the Terms and Conditions for the instant driver’s Insurance Contract, the amount of the insurance policy amount of KRW 50,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,0000, if the insured suffers from a subsequent disability equivalent to less than 80% of the amount of injury, and KRW 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00,00.

2) On December 23, 2010, the Defendant entered into a consortium insurance contract (hereinafter referred to as a " consortium insurance contract") with the Plaintiff and the Defendant as the insured on December 23, 2010. According to the General Terms and Conditions of the consortium insurance contract, in cases where the insured were killed or wounded at a rate of at least 80% during the insurance period, the amount of the injury insurance proceeds or the amount of the disability insurance proceeds after at least 80% shall be KRW 1,00,000,000, and in cases where the insured suffered injury at a rate of less than 80%, the amount of the insurance proceeds shall be 1,000,000, and in cases where the insured suffered injury at a rate of less than 80%, the amount of the disability insurance proceeds shall be less than 1,000,000, and in cases where the insured suffered injury at a rate of at least 80% after the death of less than 80,000,000,000 won, respectively.

B. On March 14, 201, the insurance period of each of the instant insurance contracts listed in the separate sheet No. 2, the Defendant suffered from injury to blood ties and blood ties (hereinafter “the instant insurance accident”). On October 20, 201, the Defendant was diagnosed by the F Hospital that he/she suffered 80% of the payment rate of the instant insurance accident at the F Hospital as the instant insurance accident occurred at the rate of 80%, and on October 21, 201, the Defendant claimed payment of insurance proceeds based on each insurance contract indicated in the separate sheet No. 2, for reasons that he/she suffered 80% or more of the payment rate to the Plaintiff, along with a diagnosis report on disability in the latter hospital.

C. The instant agreement and the payment of insurance money between the original and the Defendant

On December 16, 2011, when the Plaintiff and the Defendant received KRW 100 million in total from the Plaintiff as insurance money based on each insurance contract listed in the attached Table 2 with respect to the instant insurance accident, the Plaintiff and the Defendant renounced the Plaintiff’s claim for additional insurance money regarding the instant insurance accident in the future, and agreed to extinguish each of the instant driver’s insurance contracts, under the driver’s insurance contract, the damage caused by the loss of the injured company, the injury income security, the harm inflicted after the death of the injured company, the injury accident caused by the death of the injured company, and the accident security of the injured company over 80% (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid KRW 100 million to the Defendant.

2. Determination as to the claim for principal lawsuit

According to the above facts, the defendant's right to claim for insurance payment based on each insurance contract as stated in the separate sheet No. 2 against the plaintiff as to the insurance accident of this case has expired by the agreement of this case. Thus, there is no right to claim for the above insurance payment against the plaintiff. Nevertheless, as seen below, as long as the defendant claims the existence of the above insurance claim and seeks the payment thereof, there is a legal interest to seek confirmation that there is no obligation to claim

I would like to raise an appeal.

3. Determination as to the defendant's assertion and counterclaim

A. Whether the agreement in this case is null and void pursuant to Article 104 of the Civil Act

1) The defendant's assertion

The Defendant issued a medical certificate to the F Hospital that the Plaintiff suffered a residual disability equivalent to 80% of the payment rate of the insurance accident of this case, and filed a claim for the insurance money, and then calculated the insurance money based on the Plaintiff’s arbitrary payment rate of 60% on the basis that it constitutes a subsequent disability of 60%. As the Plaintiff’s employees G found the Defendant’s wife C at the time of bad appearance in a restaurant business and used the agreement on behalf of the Plaintiff without any explanation as to the grounds for the payment of the insurance money, it constitutes an abuse of rights or constitutes a juristic act that has lost fairness due to the Defendant’s paralysis, rashness, or inless experience. 2)

In light of the purport of C’s testimony and oral argument, it is recognized that the instant agreement was calculated on October 21, 201 on the premise that the Defendant sustained an injury equivalent to 80% of the payment rate for the Plaintiff. However, considering the following facts, the Defendant’s assertion that the instant agreement was necessary to review the instant insurance accident at 10% after the date of the instant agreement, and that it was necessary to review the instant agreement to assess the insurance proceeds on the basis of subsequent disability equivalent to 60% of the payment rate. However, considering the overall purport of Gap’s testimony and oral argument, it is difficult for the Defendant to review the instant agreement at 10% of the outcome of the instant agreement, which was issued by the design agent for each insurance contract listed in attached Table 2, and to review the instant insurance proceeds at 10% of the outcome of the instant agreement, and thus, it cannot be excluded from the point of time of view that it was necessary for the Plaintiff to review the instant insurance accident at 10% of the date of the instant agreement.

On the other hand, although I was not entitled to handle the damage assessment of the accident insurance case, the defendant argued that the agreement of this case is null and void since I was entrusted with the damage assessment business concerning the insurance accident of this case, which is the accident insurance case by the defendant, although I was not entitled to handle the damage assessment business concerning the accident insurance case, the agreement of this case cannot be deemed null and void just because I was not entitled to handle the damage assessment business

B. Whether the agreement in this case constitutes an act of unauthorized representation is null and void

1) The defendant's assertion

The agreement of this case is null and void as it constitutes an act of unauthorized representation, since the defendant's wife C acted on behalf of the defendant without any authority.

2) Determination

A juristic act related to daily home affairs under Article 832 of the Civil Act refers to a juristic act which is ordinarily necessary for a couple to lead a common life. The contents and scope of a juristic act are determined by the community’s living structure, degree, and the community’s living place of the couple. In determining whether a specific juristic act at issue concerns a couple’s daily home affairs, it shall be determined according to the ordinary social norms by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the kind and nature of the juristic act, and the subjective intent and purpose of a person in charge of family affairs, and actual living conditions such as the couple’s social status, occupation, property, and revenue capacity (see Supreme Court Decisions 97Da3129, Nov. 28, 1997; 98Da46877, Mar. 9, 199).

According to Gap evidence No. 3 and Eul's testimony, it is recognized that the defendant's wife signed the defendant's agreement of this case on behalf of the defendant. However, in full view of the above evidence and the purport of the whole arguments, the defendant at the time did not have any circumstance to claim insurance money directly to the plaintiff or to enter into an agreement on the payment of insurance money to the plaintiff due to a subsequent disability caused by the insurance accident of this case. Eul claimed insurance money to the plaintiff with the intent to represent the defendant in the above situation and entered into the agreement of this case. C used the above insurance money for lease deposit and overdue rent of the apartment house at the same time as the defendant's husband's residence, C's overdue rent of the restaurant operated by C, defendant's nursing expenses for the period of hospital treatment and medical expenses of the plaintiff's wife, and it is reasonable to see that the above insurance money was inevitable to maintain the plaintiff's community's agreement on the payment of insurance money to the plaintiff's property at the time of the above insurance money, and in light of such recognition, it can be seen that the above insurance money was an essential cost for the defendant's community's management.

Therefore, C is deemed to have the authority to conclude the instant agreement on behalf of the defendant under Article 827 of the Civil Code, so the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

Even if C’s conclusion of the instant agreement on behalf of the Defendant goes beyond the scope of ordinary household insurance agent as stipulated in Article 827 of the Civil Act, as seen earlier, even if it was difficult for the Defendant to continue to recover the external dementia situation caused by the instant insurance accident, as seen earlier, C, which is the Defendant’s wife, was bound to claim insurance money based on each of the instant insurance contracts on behalf of the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff had no choice but to consult with C regarding the payment of insurance money related to the instant insurance. As can be seen, in the event that the insured cannot claim directly as an insured accident or make an agreement related to the payment of insurance money in the accident insurance, it is a subordinate reason to claim insurance money on behalf of the insured’s family member, such as the spouse, etc., and that the instant driver insurance contract is a policyholder, the Plaintiff is authorized to enter into the instant agreement on behalf of the Defendant at the time of

Since there is a justifiable reason to believe that the agreement in this case has effect on the defendant who is the principal, the agreement in this case cannot accept the defendant's assertion.

C. Judgment on the defendant's counterclaim

1) The defendant's assertion

Under each insurance contract in the attached list No. 2, where the state of disability becomes worse during the period during which the rate of disability payment was determined, the defendant should pay additional 230 million won in total, including the aggravated state of disability. Since the symptoms of this case have deteriorated after the agreement of this case, the agreement of this case is null and void, the plaintiff is obligated to pay to the defendant the insurance proceeds of the injury after the death of this case under the driver insurance contract of this case, the amount of KRW 50 million, the amount of injury income compensation fund of KRW 10 million ( = 10 million per annum x 10 billion per annum), the amount of insurance proceeds of the injury after the death of injury under the consortium insurance contract, the amount of insurance proceeds of the injury, the amount of KRW 80,000,000,000,000 won, such as KRW 50,000 + 10,000 + KRW 70,000,000).

2) Determination:

As seen earlier, since the agreement of this case cannot be deemed null and void, the defendant's above assertion based on this premise is without merit without further review.

Even if the defendant's above assertion could not have predicted that the defendant's external dementia symptoms caused by the insurance accident of this case will further deepen at the time of the agreement of this case, so even if the agreement of this case was concluded to the effect that the defendant cannot be deemed to have waived the insurance claim corresponding to the additional part of damage, the above argument of the defendant cannot be justified in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the overall purport of the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 2, 4, 5, and 6. In other words, at the time of the agreement of this case, the defendant had already been issued with a medical certificate of subsequent disability with the fact that the defendant suffered severe dementia due to the insurance accident of this case at the F Hospital and K Hospital, and the plaintiff has a doubt about the appropriateness of the above medical certificate, and for the defendant's accurate decision on the payment rate of insurance money, it is difficult to view that the defendant did not immediately refuse to pay the insurance money of this case after the lapse of about 18 months and 24 months from the insurance accident of this case, and that the defendant did not agree with the agreement of this case.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit is justified, and the defendant's counterclaim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.