logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.09.23 2015가합59179
채무부존재확인
Text

1. On January 25, 2015, the Plaintiff’s insurance contract based on the insurance contract indicated in the separate sheet with respect to an accident of which the network E died due to wing cancer.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 21, 2014, the Plaintiff, as an insurance company, concluded an insurance contract on the attached list with the deceased and the beneficiary as legal heir of the deceased (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

B. On January 25, 2015, the Deceased died as a wingam.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On March 3, 2015, the Defendants, the legal inheritor of the deceased, filed a claim against the Plaintiff for the payment of KRW 50 million of the disease death insurance money stipulated in the instant insurance contract. However, the Plaintiff rejected such claim, and on April 8, 2015, notified the Defendants of the termination of the instant insurance contract on the ground that the Deceased violated the duty of disclosure.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s deceased was diagnosed on July 16, 2014, prior to the conclusion of the instant insurance contract, but did not notify the above fact at the time of concluding the instant insurance contract. As the Plaintiff terminated the instant insurance contract on the ground of violating the duty of disclosure, there is no obligation to pay the Plaintiff’s disease death benefit due to the instant accident.

(2) The Defendants did not violate the duty of disclosure on the grounds that the Defendants did not receive any diagnosis of wing-type before entering into the instant insurance contract.

Even if there was a violation of the duty of disclosure, the occurrence of the insurance accident can not be recognized as causation, so the plaintiff's right of termination should be limited.

B. (1) Determination is the same as whether the insurer concludes an insurance contract by measuring the occurrence of the insured events and the extension rate of liability resulting therefrom, or as an addition to the premium or special exemption clause, under Article 651 of the Commercial Act, which is liable to notify the insurer at the time of the insurance contract.

arrow