208Gaz. 1425 Insurance proceeds

A (53 years old, South)

Attorney Park Hong-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

m. Life insurance company

Representative Director;

Attorney Park Jae-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

July 22, 2009

August 26, 2009

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 6,00,000 won with 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment, and 10,000,000 won each year from November 1, 203 to November 1, 2023.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are either disputed between the parties, or acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, and 5-1 through 3, Gap evidence 6-1 through 4, Gap evidence 8-1, 2, Eul evidence 1, and 2:

(a) Conclusion of insurance contracts;

On November 25, 1998, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract with the Defendant for the main insured as the Plaintiff, with the insurance period of 15 years from the date of the above insurance contract (the maturity on November 25, 2013). In the event of hospitalization and disability, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract for the main security worker (hereinafter referred to as the “instant insurance contract”) with the Plaintiff, and the main contents of the contract are as follows.

(1) Where a principal insured person suffers from a third degree disability due to a disaster, payment of KRW 5,00,000 each year as disability pension (payment of KRW 10,000,000, which is 200% of disability pension where he/she suffers from a disability due to Saturdays or a national holiday) for 20 years.

(2) Where the insured has suffered from a third degree disability due to a disaster, 10,000,000 won (payment of 15,000,000 won which is 150% of the amount of benefits for a disaster where he/she has suffered from a disability due to a Saturday or a national holiday) shall be paid as benefits for a disaster.

(b) Occurrence of insurance accidents;

On November 1, 2003, when the plaintiff driving a vehicle from the 15:20 U.S., 15:20, the plaintiff paid 20% of the total expenses of the plaintiff's 20% of the total expenses of the 15:20 U.S., and 285 km from the Busan Highway. The plaintiff paid 1.0% of the total expenses of the plaintiff's 200 U.S., 10 U.S., 60 U.S., 30 U.S., 60 U.S., 60 U.S., 60 U.S., 60 U.S., 15:50 U.S., 15:00 U.S., 200 U.S., 200 U.S., 200.) to the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that since the plaintiff's disability status has deteriorated continuously after the judgment of the court below, since it falls under class III of disability classification stipulated in the insurance contract of this case as the condition of the plaintiff's disability status which remains clear in spine permanently, and therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff disability pension of KRW 6,00,000 after deducting the amount of KRW 9,00,000 paid by the previous suit out of the amount of KRW 15,000,000 under the insurance contract of this case and the amount of KRW 10,000 each year from November 1, 2003, which is the date of the insurance accident of this case, until November 1, 2023.

3. Determination on this safety defense

Since the defendant asserts that the lawsuit in this case is unlawful because it conflicts with res judicata of the previous lawsuit, it shall be dismissed as there is no interest in the protection of rights in the part of the previous lawsuit in the case where the lawsuit in this case is brought again against the same subject matter of lawsuit after a final and conclusive judgment of partial winning of the previous lawsuit has become final and conclusive, and the part of the previous lawsuit in which the previous lawsuit has been lost cannot be judged inconsistent (see Supreme Court Decision 79Da1275, Sept. 11, 1979). The fact that the mediation accepting part of the plaintiff's claim in the previous lawsuit filed by the plaintiff as the subject matter of lawsuit in the previous lawsuit filed by the plaintiff with the claim as the subject matter of lawsuit in this case is clear that the plaintiff is seeking payment of the insurance money for the part which has been deducted from the part cited in the previous lawsuit and sought payment of the insurance money for the part which has been in excess thereof. Thus,

4. Judgment on the merits

In addition, the plaintiff's claim of this case subject to the same subject matter as the previous suit cannot be judged inconsistent with the previous suit in accordance with the res judicata of the previous suit because the plaintiff filed the claim of this case on the premise that the disability grade of the plaintiff falls under class 3 in the insurance contract of this case, but it is not sufficient to recognize it only with the statement of evidence No. 6-5, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to the result of the court's physical entrustment to the president of this court, the plaintiff's disability grade can only be acknowledged as falling under class 4, and therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case subject to the same subject matter as the previous suit cannot be judged differently in accordance with the res judicata of the previous suit.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Chief Judge Park Tae-tae

Judge Lee Dong-dong

Judges' Quota