(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.5.9. 선고 2018가단5084092 판결

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 200,000,000 won with 6% per annum from August 16, 2017 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 8, 2016, Nonparty C concluded an insurance contract with the Defendant with the following content (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

The name of insurance: Dsecurities number: The insurance period on December 8, 2016: from December 8, 2016 to August 24, 2016, the Insured (30 years): The beneficiary of CDeath Insurance Proceeds: the legal heir's cancer diagnosis expenses (basic contract): 190,000,000 general injury (special contract) in general, causing death of KRW 190,000,000, general injury (special contract) in general. of KRW 10,000: 10,000.

B. The Defendant, on the written subscription for the instant insurance contract, announced the following matters in the form of obligation to notify prior to the contract.

In relation to the insured, the following matters are necessary for the company to examine and accept the subscription for the insurance contract, so the policyholder and the insured shall be able to inform the following questions as to whether they are true and the time of direct preparation.In the case that the investigation agency fails to inform the truth or falsely notifies the following questions, the insurance may be refused and in particular, it shall be notified 1 to 14 times.

In cases falling under the "Important Matters", a company may unilaterally terminate this insurance contract in accordance with the terms and conditions of insurance, and even if an insurance accident has already occurred, guarantee may be restricted by refusing to pay the insurance money, etc. In addition, in cases where an insurance solicitor, etc. did not give an opportunity to notify the policyholder or the insured or interfere with the true notification, the insurance contract may not be terminated or guarantee may not be restricted.

C In the job column of the question 1, the C did not state any answer to the question of 15 's side business or concurrent business, whether seasonally engaged in work?'.

C. On June 8, 2017, C performed dry field work at the F residence of Gangwon-do, and on June 9, 2017 following the date, C was hospitalized at G-based hospital on June 10, 201, but the symptoms were not shown, and C was hospitalized at the G-based hospital on the same day, but was hospitalized on June 14, 2017, but was transferred to the G-based hospital affiliated with the G-based Gangwon-si University on the same day on June 14, 2017, upon being hospitalized, C died to “the ververebrocytopia” (hereinafter referred to as “C”).

D. At the time of the medical examination and treatment at the hospital annexed to the Gangwon-do University, the deceased was in a scarb in the scarb, and 2 math of the dead scarb was found on the right side of the scarb.

E. The Plaintiff is the only legal inheritor as the father of the deceased. On July 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that the death of the deceased, who was the insured, constitutes a general injury death under the instant insurance contract, and claimed the payment of the insurance money, but was refused on the ground that the deceased violated the duty of disclosure as to his occupation, etc.

F. On October 20, 2017, the Defendant concluded an insurance contract based on the Plaintiff without properly notifying the Defendant, who is the insurer, of important matters relating to the occupation, etc. among the items to be notified to the Defendant at the time of concluding the instant insurance contract. This is in violation of the duty of disclosure under the Commercial Act and the terms and conditions, and thus, notified the Plaintiff of its intent to cancel

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including numbered evidence; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, fact-finding reply to J union, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of the instant claim

A. The parties' assertion on the violation of the duty of disclosure

1) Plaintiff

The Deceased does not fall under crops cultivation workers or farmers who are occupation as continuous income activities to meet the basic demand of life, because he/she has filed a lodging for the purpose of eating in his/her house, which is not for-profit in his/her house.

Even if it is recognized that the deceased's breach of duty of disclosure is recognized, it cannot be specified that the deceased is infinite that the deceased is infinite, and rather, it cannot be ruled out the possibility that the wild drum attached to the river in the outdoor dynasium was dyke, and thus, it cannot be ruled out that the violation of duty of disclosure was not affected by the occurrence of an insurance accident. Therefore, the deceased's death constitutes a general injury death, and the defendant is obliged to pay insurance money to the

2) The defendant;

Although the deceased is a member of the J Association and was in the status of being subscribed to the farmers' safety insurance, and actually cultivated crops for the past seven years while cultivating a considerable portion of the said land by possessing 10,327 square meters before the Gangseo F, the deceased was in violation of the duty of disclosure that failed to properly state this content in the job column, which is an important matter that determines the insurance risk rate in the accident insurance contract, was an important violation of the duty of disclosure, and the defendant lawfully terminated the insurance contract of this case on

B. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

Reduction by intention or gross negligence of the policyholder or the insured at the time of the insurance contract

If the insurer has failed to inform material facts or has made a false notification, the insurer may terminate the contract within one month from the date of becoming aware of such fact, or within three years from the date of conclusion of the contract: Provided, That this shall not apply if the insurer knew or was unable to know due to gross negligence at the time of the contract (Article 651 of the Commercial Act, the termination of the contract due to

On the other hand, in the case of an injury insurance contract, the insured’s occupation is an important data for the measurement of the possibility of death, etc. caused by an occupation or an unexpected accident in the course of performing his/her duties, and thus, the insured’s occupation is an important matter to be notified by the policyholder (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da28259, Oct. 23, 1992).

2) Determination as to whether the duty of disclosure is violated and whether the contract can be terminated

A) Comprehensively taking into account the facts acknowledged earlier and the statements in Gap's evidence Nos. 4, 6, and 4 through 12, and part of Eul evidence Nos. 7, 8, and 13, the whole purport of the pleadings as a whole, in relation to the conclusion of the insurance contract of this case, when collecting questions that the defendant requested the deceased as a party to the contract of this case to enter into the insurance contract of this case as well as questions 1 and 15, it is important material to determine the possibility of the occurrence of the accident in relation to the "general injury or death" as an insurance accident to which the deceased requested the acquisition as a special contract of this case and the defendant consented, so it is important for the policyholder to notify the deceased to the extent that the deceased continues to have caused the accident. It is reasonable to view that the deceased's act falls under the category of a farmer as an occupation as an occupation worker or was engaged in agriculture as a concurrent business. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the entry to the effect that there is no occupational side or concurrent business, etc. is an intentional act or gross negligence in view.

① Even if the deceased’s 196-year life had a significant impact on the deceased’s 196-year life, he/she had lived with the non-party K for about 14 years before the date of the accident, and lived together with the deceased’s housing at the time of the accident. ② The land category of Gangwon-do (hereinafter “instant land”) is equal to 10,327 square meters, and the deceased’s land was purchased for 202 or more, and thus, it appears that the deceased’s 6-year life had a large scale of 10 square meters, including the land for raising livestock, and that the deceased’s 6-year life had a large scale of 1,000 square meters, and that the deceased’s 1,000-year agricultural business had been actually engaged in growing and growing livestock products, and that the deceased would have been engaged in growing and growing livestock products on the date of the instant accident.

B) Therefore, it is reasonable to see that the deceased was engaged in the production of crops, and on the contrary, it is reasonable to see that the contract of this case was lawfully terminated on October 20, 2017 according to the defendant's notice of termination on the ground that the contract of this case was terminated on the ground that the contract of this case was terminated on October 20, 2017.

C) Even if the Defendant’s breach of duty of disclosure is recognized, it cannot be determined that the deceased was infinites, and that the deceased was infinites, and rather, it cannot be ruled out the possibility that the wild fighters attached to the river in the outdoor were dinites, and thus, it cannot be ruled out that the violation of duty of disclosure was not affected by the occurrence of the insured event, and thus, the deceased’s death constitutes a general injury death.

Modernity, violation of notification obligations, or substantial change or increase in risk.

In a case where it has been proved that the occurrence of an insurance accident does not affect the occurrence of the insurance accident, insurance money is liable (proviso of Article 655 of the Commercial Act). According to the health team, A8, B, and 11 and 13 as to whether or not the plaintiff proved such fact, it was difficult for the deceased to see the fact that the deceased's satisfies can be the owner of a house in the wild satch. However, the first habitat of a wild satch is outdoor and the medical record (9), which appears to have been made based on the deceased's own statement (9), and the medical record (9), which was made based on the deceased's own statement) and the non-party O's confirmation (2 and 1) that was neighboring to the deceased, who had been living together with the deceased, was on the outside dry field on June 8, 2017, and it is difficult to conclude that the deceased's satisfies were returned to the deceased's satisf.

C. Sub-decision

The Plaintiff’s assertion on the instant insurance claim, premised on the validity of the instant insurance contract, is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.