logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.04.25 2018나65864
보험금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the addition of the following "2. Additional determination" as to the allegations added by the plaintiff in this court, and therefore, they are quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant did not perform the duty to specify and explain Article 27 of the General Terms and Conditions at the time of entering into an insurance contract, and thus, it cannot be asserted as the content of the insurance contract

B. Generally, an insurer and a person engaged in the conclusion or solicitation of an insurance contract are obligated to specify and explain the important contents of the insurance contract, such as the content of the insurance contract, the insurance premium rate system, changes in the entries in the written subscription form, etc., which are specified in the insurance contract, when the insurer concludes the insurance contract in violation of such duty to specify and explain the terms and conditions, it cannot be asserted as the content of the insurance contract. However, the insurer’s recognition of the duty to specify and explain the terms and conditions is based on the fact that the policyholder is not aware of the important matters of the terms and conditions and is likely to avoid unexpected disadvantages to the policyholder. Thus, even if the terms and conditions of the insurance contract are stipulated in the terms and conditions, it cannot be said that the insurer has the duty to explain and explain such matters even if they are general and common in the transaction, and if they are merely about the extent that the policyholder could have sufficiently anticipated without any separate explanation, or that they are about to delete or delay those matters as stipulated in

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da15556 delivered on May 30, 2003, etc.).

arrow