logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.08.26 2014가합5731
채무부존재확인
Text

1. The plaintiff is based on the insurance contract as set out in the separate sheet No. 2 with respect to the accident listed in the separate sheet No. 1.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 2, 2007, the Plaintiff concluded an insurance contract on July 2, 2007 with the deceased and the beneficiary as legal heir of the deceased (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) as an insurance company with the aim of non-life insurance business, etc., listed in the attached Table No. 2 of the deceased’s list (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

B. On May 21, 2013, the Deceased died as an accident listed in Paragraph 1 of the Attached List (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. The Defendants, the legal inheritor of the Deceased, filed a claim against the Plaintiff for the payment of the insurance money. However, the Plaintiff refused the payment of the insurance money on the ground that the damage caused by the instant accident constitutes “damage not compensated” as stipulated under Article 15(3)1 of the Insurance Terms and Conditions of the instant insurance contract (hereinafter “instant exemption clause”).

15. (Non-Compensation Damages) (3) Unless otherwise agreed by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff shall not compensate for the damages incurred while the insured engages in any of the following activities for the purposes of occupation, duties or club activities:

(i) is a technical light team (referring to a team that misleads the ice wall or ice wall, or requires special skills, experience, and advance training using a professional light aid), Bangladesh steering, and Scar;

The facts that there is no dispute over ice, Scuba ice, Scuba, Scuba crowdfunding, or any other dangerous movement similar thereto [based on recognition], each entry in Gap1 through 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff explained to the Deceased at the time of the conclusion of the instant insurance contract the instant exemption clause was included in the content of the insurance contract. The instant accident occurred while the Deceased, who is the insured, was engaged in specialized class activities for occupation, duties or club activities. As such, the Plaintiff is insured against the Defendants pursuant to the exemption clause of this case.

arrow