logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2015.02.11 2014가단27462
보험금
Text

1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 1, 2013, Nonparty Hyundai Motor Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “former Motor”) concluded an organization accident insurance with the Defendant and the insured (hereinafter “instant insurance”) with employees belonging to Hyundai Motor Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the insured”). The instant insurance would be paid KRW 50,000,000 to the insured’s legal heir, who is a beneficiary of insurance, when the insured dies from a disease.

B. On August 21, 2013, the Deceased prepared a testamentary document with the content of “the instant testamentary document” (hereinafter referred to as “instant testamentary document”) at the same time with all the insurance proceeds accrued from the instant insurance, and the Plaintiffs filed an application for approval seal on the instant testamentary document with the Ulsan District Court 2013Ra1456, and accepted the said application on May 13, 2014.

C. The deceased’s legal heir and wife D are children, and the defendant, out of the insurance money under the instant insurance, 21,428,572 won, is borne by D and refused payment to the plaintiffs.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the whole purport of the pleading

2. The plaintiffs asserts that Hyundai Motor only paid insurance premiums based on the insurance of this case, and merely did not designate a beneficiary of this case, the deceased, the insured, may designate a beneficiary of this case. Since the deceased changed to a beneficiary of this case into a testamentary document of this case, the defendant should pay 21,428,572 won of the insurance money which the plaintiff refused to pay to the plaintiffs.

On the other hand, the policyholder can change the beneficiary after the conclusion of the insurance contract, which is the exclusive right of the policyholder. However, just because the plaintiffs cited, it cannot be viewed that there is a right of change of the beneficiary to the deceased who is merely the insured, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

arrow