logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원목포지원 2015.11.05 2015가합10009
보험에관한 소송
Text

1. The insurance contract entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B is invalid.

2. The plaintiff, defendant .

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 22, 2009, Defendant A entered into an insurance contract in attached Form 1 (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with the Plaintiff as the insured and the beneficiary of the non-life insurance, and entered into an insurance contract with the content that he/she is receiving a hospital allowance, etc. (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”). On July 2, 2014, Defendant A changed the contractual party of the instant insurance contract and the beneficiary of non-life insurance into Defendant B, who is the beneficiary of the instant insurance contract.

B. From October 29, 2009 to November 16, 2009, Defendant A received hospitalization for 362 days in total 24 times until August 26, 2014, as shown in the attached Table 2, on the ground that he was hospitalized at C Hospital (or Gu D Hospital; hereinafter “D Hospital”) for 19 days on the ground of the scambling and tension of the scams and scams of the scams and scams of the scamnes of the simpnes, and received from the Plaintiff for 18,670,828 won (Defendant A17,830,828 won, Defendant B840,000 won) as the insurance money under the insurance contract of this case for each of the above treatment received by Defendant A.

C. Meanwhile, the insurance contract concluded between the defendant A and the insurance company including the plaintiff before or after the conclusion of the instant insurance contract, and the insurance premiums paid and the details of the insurance money paid according thereto are as listed in the following table:

The table: The part indicated as “0” in the details of the insurance contract concluded by Defendant A as the insured and the “insurance money” column is the part where the relevant details are not nonexistent or where the evidence submitted up to the present time alone is not confirmed.

Meanwhile, according to the above evidence, the defendant A could have received more amount of daily allowances for hospitalization than that set forth in the column of "daily allowances for hospitalization" if he/she is hospitalized into a specific disease according to a certain special agreement among the above insurance contracts.

The contractor shall be entitled to the monthly insurance premium (cost), daily allowance for admission, which is named as the date of subscription of the insurance company.

arrow