logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원목포지원 2016.09.21 2016가단50632
약정금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion completed the marriage report with the Defendant on June 9, 1993, and thereafter two children C (D) and E (F) respectively. The Plaintiff received KRW 100,000,000 insurance money from Samsung Life Insurance due to the malicious species generated in the part of Sejong, on June 2010.

On August 2, 2010, the Defendant concluded each of the instant insurance contracts with the name of the policyholder and the beneficiary as the Plaintiff respectively. On May 2, 2013, the Defendant changed the name of the policyholder and the beneficiary of each of the instant insurance contracts to the Plaintiff on May 15, 2013.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to express his/her intent to change the name of the contracting parties and various beneficiaries of each insurance contract of this case to the plaintiff in accordance with the above agreement.

2. The Plaintiff completed a marriage report with the Defendant on June 9, 1993 and established C and E respectively, and the Plaintiff received KRW 100,000,000 insurance money from Samsung Life Insurance after undergoing a malicious species operation on or around June 2010, and the Defendant entered into each of the instant insurance contracts with the policyholder and the beneficiary’s name as of August 2, 2010, with each of the instant insurance contracts as of August 2, 2010, and thereafter, the Defendant changed the name of the policyholder of each of the instant insurance contracts and each of the beneficiaries under one’s own name as of May 15, 2013 can be acknowledged either as a dispute between the parties, or as to the fact that the Defendant changed the name of the policyholder of each of the instant insurance contracts and each of the beneficiaries under one’s own name as of May 15, 2013 by adding the entire purport

However, each of the above facts and evidence Nos. 8 and 9 cannot be deemed to have stated that the Defendant, as alleged by the Plaintiff, at the time of changing the name of the policyholder and various beneficiaries of each of the insurance contracts of this case on or around May 2013, the Plaintiff provided that “the name of the policyholder and all of the beneficiaries of each of the insurance contracts of this case shall be changed to the Plaintiff at any time,” and the Plaintiff’s assertion.

arrow