(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.08.22 2015나2034183

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 2017.08.22 2015나2034183

보험금

Text

1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2...

Reasons

1. In accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act citing the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance is

However, as set forth in paragraph (2) below, part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is dismissed or added, and the judgment on the plaintiff's claim added by this court as set forth in paragraph (3) is added.

2. On the 8th page 13 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part used or added “A. A. The termination of the insurance contract of this case” was changed to “A. Whether the insurance contract of this case was terminated or not, and whether the occurrence of the insurance accident of this case was connected”.

The 9th 4th 10th 10th 1st 1st 1st 1st 2th 2th 2th 2

Article 651 of the Commercial Act (Termination of Contracts due to Breach of Duty of Disclosure) If the policyholder or the insured has failed to notify, intentionally or by gross negligence, of material facts at the time of the insurance contract, 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 where the insurer knew of such fact or was unable to know of such fact at the time of the contract due to gross negligence. According to the general provisions concerning termination of the contract due to breach of duty of disclosure, the causal relationship between the fact of violation of the duty of disclosure and the occurrence of an insured event is unnecessary, and the same shall apply to the same.

Article 655 of the former Commercial Act (amended by Act No. 12397, Mar. 11, 2014) (amended by Act No. 6555) (amended by Act No. 6555, Mar. 11, 2014); if an insurer terminates a contract even after the termination of the contract and the occurrence of an insured event, pursuant to Articles 650, 651, 652, and 653, the insurer is not liable

However, insurance accidents are covered by the breach of the duty of disclosure or a substantial change or increase in risk.

참조조문

유사 판례

-대법원 2010. 7. 22. 선고 2010다25353 판결

-서울고등법원 2010. 2. 12. 선고 2009나94744 판결

-서울중앙지법 2004. 10. 28. 선고 2004나21069 판결

-서울고등법원 2018.07.19 2018나2010232

-대법원 1997. 9. 5. 선고 95다25268 판결