In a case where a false claim was filed against the household effects damage portion in claiming for a non-life insurance benefit based on the non-life insurance claim based on the household effects, the case holding that in light of all the circumstances such as the fact that even if the insurance contract concluded and determined the insurance amount by dividing the items into the "building fire" and "the household effects fire and theft", it cannot be deemed that the separate insurance contract was concluded by each item, it cannot be deemed that the insurance contract was concluded by each item, and that not only the damage portion subject to the false claim but also the right to claim for the remaining part of the damage

In a case where a false claim was filed against the household effects damage portion in claiming for a non-life insurance benefit based on the non-life insurance claim based on the household effects, the case holding that in light of all circumstances such as the fact that even if an insurance contract was concluded and the items were divided into “building fire” and “the household effects fire and theft,” it cannot be deemed that a separate insurance contract was concluded for each item, it shall not be deemed that a separate insurance contract was concluded for each item, and that the claim for the remainder of the non-life damage portion shall also be lost.

Article 105 of the Civil Act, Article 658 of the Commercial Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Jong-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm Southern, Attorneys Kim Young-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

March 16, 2006

1. With respect to each fire accident listed in attached Form 1., it is confirmed that there is no insurance payment obligation of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) based on the insurance contract listed in attached Form 2.

2. The defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff's counterclaim is dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff by aggregating the principal lawsuit and counterclaims.

Main claim: It is as described in paragraph (1).

Counterclaim: The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant; hereinafter "the plaintiff") shall pay to the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff; hereinafter "the defendant") the amount of KRW 37,770,267 (the amount of KRW 36,770,267 as stated in the purport of the claim of the counterclaim is clear that it is 37,770,267 won) and the amount of money at the rate of 6% per annum from August 29, 2004 to the date of delivery of the duplicate of the counterclaim of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

The principal claim and counterclaim shall be judged together.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 5, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a comprehensive distribution execution insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) under which the Plaintiff pays damages incurred as insurance money to the Defendant in the instant building and the instant building and its affiliated building, and its affiliated building, from July 5, 2004 to July 5, 2014, with the insurance amount of KRW 370 million, the household fire amount of KRW 30 million, the household fire amount of KRW 30 million, the household fire amount of KRW 30 million, and KRW 5 million, the household fire amount of KRW 5 million, and the household fire amount of KRW 5 million. In the event a fire occurs in the instant building and the village of the instant building and the building of the instant building, or the household fire amount of KRW 150,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000 won were paid from the Defendant.

B. According to Article 24 of the Insurance Terms and Conditions incorporated into the content of the instant insurance contract, the insured shall lose the right to claim for damages, where the policyholder or the insured intentionally entered matters different from the facts in the documents concerning the notification of damages or the claim for insurance proceeds, or forged or altered such documents or evidence. Article 4 of the Insurance Terms and Conditions provides that “In the event a fraudulent act by the policyholder, the insured, or his/her agent was committed with respect to the contract, the insurance contract shall be invalidated.”

C. On August 24, 2004, around 01:45, a fire from the instant building occurred due to a cause not attributable to the house, and the household-to-house, which had been accommodated therein, was entirely destroyed, and a substantial part of the temporary area was cut off. In addition, around the time from the 28th to the 29th day of the same month, the warehouse destroyed a fire from the warehouse among the instant building due to a cause not attributable to the warehouse (hereinafter referred to as the “each of the instant fire”).

[Grounds for Recognition]

The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, 5, 6, Gap evidence 9-1, 2, A10, 13, Eul evidence 1, 2, 3, and 5, the testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings by the witness non-party 1 and 2.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff is the cause of the plaintiff's claim. (1) Since the defendant claims insurance money against the plaintiff using the false statement of damages and receipts, the defendant lost its insurance claim pursuant to Article 24 of the insurance clause of this case. (2) The defendant asserts that although the insurable value of the building of this case is 35,770,267 won, the insurance amount is 370 million won, and even though the insurable value of the building of this case is 282,00 won, the insurance amount is 30 million won, and the insurance amount is 30 million won, the insurance contract of this case constitutes excess insurance caused by the defendant's fraud and thus the insurance contract of this case is null and void pursuant to Article 69 (4) of the Commercial Act, or null and void pursuant to Article 4 of the insurance clause of this case, and (3) of the insurance contract of this case is caused by the defendant's fire, the plaintiff is not liable to pay insurance money to the defendant.

B. Defendant’s assertion

Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff, the insurer, is liable to pay the insurance proceeds under the insurance contract of this case to the plaintiff, the insured, unless there are special circumstances.

(c) Markets:

(1) The plaintiff cited the above (1) through (3) on the ground that there is no obligation to pay the insurance money due to the insurance accident of this case, and first of all, among the above reasons, we examine whether the defendant lost his right to claim insurance money under Article 24 of the insurance clauses by claiming insurance money using false specifications and receipts.

According to Article 24 of the insurance contract of this case, the defendant intentionally stated that the above insurance proceeds were different from the facts on the plaintiff's claim for damages, or forged or altered the above insurance proceeds. The defendant was 1, 3, 4, 10, 14-1, 15-4, 10, and 10 of the total insurance proceeds of this case, and 300,000 won for each of the above insurance proceeds of this case's insurance proceeds of this case's insurance proceeds of this case's insurance proceeds of this case's insurance proceeds of this case's insurance proceeds of this case's insurance proceeds of this case's insurance proceeds of this case's insurance proceeds of this case's insurance proceeds of this case's insurance proceeds of this case's insurance proceeds of this case's insurance proceeds of this case's insurance proceeds of this case's insurance proceeds of this case's insurance proceeds of 00,000 won for non-party 2's total insurance proceeds of this case's insurance proceeds of this case's insurance proceeds of this case's insurance proceeds of this case's insurance proceeds of this case'.

(2) As to this, the Defendant asserted that, while claiming insurance money after the occurrence of each of the instant fire, only the part of the household fire damage caused by the fire was submitted a false statement of damage and receipt, it would only lose the right to claim the insurance money for that part, and that the right to claim the insurance money for the fire damage of the instant building, which is irrelevant to the submission of false documents, would also be excessively harsh or contrary to equity.

In light of the aforementioned circumstances, even if the Defendant concluded the instant insurance contract by dividing the items into building fire, household fire and theft and concluded the insurance contract with fixing the insurance amount, it cannot be deemed that the separate insurance contract was concluded for each item. The circumstance leading up to the conclusion of the instant insurance contract and the claim for insurance proceeds recognized earlier (as a result of the instant insurance contract after the insurance accident, even if the insurable value of the instant building is assessed as KRW 35,770,267, the Defendant did not present an objective evidence proving that the value of the instant building is reasonable for the insurance amount, etc.). The Defendant’s false exaggerated amount exceeds 10 times the actual amount of damages, and the Defendant entered the damage specification and receipt, which is a document on the claim for insurance proceeds, in fact, as it infringed the good faith or good faith principle of the insurance contract by making the instant fraudulent claim, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion that the aforementioned part of the instant building is unreasonable or unreasonable as well as that of the damages that are subject to false claims.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the defendant lost his right to claim insurance against the plaintiff. Thus, there is no obligation of the plaintiff to pay insurance money against the defendant due to each fire accident of this case. Since the defendant claims insurance money as a counter-claim, the plaintiff's claim seeking confirmation of non-existence of the above insurance money is justified, and the plaintiff's counterclaim seeking confirmation of non-existence of the above insurance money is dismissed on the ground that the insurance claim of this case continues to exist effectively, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Lee Dong-Ba (Presiding Judge)