(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.04 2015가합527002

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.04 2015가합527002

보험에관한 소송

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On September 30, 1996, the fact that the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to subscribe to the insurance indicated in the separate sheet (director’s “instant insurance”). The fact that the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 252,400 to the two-minutes of insurance premiums by October 1996 is no dispute between the parties.

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the Plaintiff did not receive from the Defendant the notice of the unpaid insurance premium and the subsequent notice of the termination of the insurance contract, the above insurance still remains valid, and even if not, it is not so.

However, according to the plaintiff's filing of a civil petition, the defendant agreed to restore the unpaid insurance premium to the plaintiff.

Nevertheless, the Defendant is disputing the validity of the instant insurance. Therefore, the Plaintiff has the interest to seek confirmation as the policyholder and the primary insured of the instant insurance.

B. The insurance of this case was invalidated on the ground of the Plaintiff’s delay in the payment of premiums.

Furthermore, it should be deemed that the right to claim a restoration of the above insurance has been invalidated as it goes against the principle of trust and good faith when 18 years or more have elapsed since the Plaintiff’s failure to pay the instant insurance premium was invalidated.

3. Determination

A. First, the insurance of this case is still valid despite the unpaid premiums of the Plaintiff.

Article 16 (1) of the Insurance Terms and Conditions of this case, in full view of the purport of the argument in the statement in subparagraph 1, that the Plaintiff paid only twice the insurance premium of this case to the Defendant and did not pay the subsequent insurance premium. In the event that the contractor has not paid the insurance premium from the second time to the end of the month following the month to which the due date for payment of the insurance premium belongs, the insurance premium shall be the grace period for the payment of the premium. In the event that the contractor has not paid the premium until the expiration of the grace period, the insurance contract

유사 판례

-대법원 1991. 7. 9. 선고 91다12875 판결

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.13 2014나12231

-창원지방법원 2009. 10. 22. 선고 2009구합759 판결

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.01.14 2012가단344629

-부산지방법원동부지원 2017.12.27 2016가단207821