logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.15 2014가합529629
보험에관한 소송
Text

1. The part of the instant lawsuit dismissing the claim for confirmation of the validity of an insurance contract.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims.

Reasons

Basic Facts

Article 21 (Obligation to Notify before Contract) The contractor or the insured must be informed of the fact that he knows about the matters asked in the subscription form at the time of the subscription (hereinafter referred to as the "pre-contract obligation", and the same as the "Duty to Notify" under the Commercial Act).

Article 22 (Effect of Violation of Duty to Notify before Contract) (1) Where a contractor or the insured has notified the contractor or the insured of an important fact intentionally or by gross negligence differently from the fact, notwithstanding Article 21, the company may terminate the contract or put a limitation on the guarantee of the contract in a separately determined manner

However, this does not apply in any of the following cases:

5. Where an insurance solicitor, etc. fails to give a policyholder or the insured an opportunity to notify, or interferes with the true notification, he/she shall make the contractor or the insured not give a true notice, or shall encourage the policyholder or the insured to give a false notice.

At the time. On September 17, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract of “Undividend CI life insurance type 1” with the content that the Plaintiff and the Defendant would designate the insured as the Plaintiff through the Defendant’s insurance solicitor C, and that the insured would pay the insurance proceeds to the Plaintiff, the beneficiary, when the insured was hospitalized with a disability (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”). The main contents of the standardized terms and conditions included in the instant insurance contract are as follows.

On June 27, 2013, the Plaintiff claimed insurance money to the Defendant under the instant insurance contract on the ground that the Defendant was hospitalized as follows:

D EF, however, the Plaintiff had been hospitalized and operated as follows before entering into the instant insurance contract, and on August 7, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the instant insurance contract on the grounds of the Plaintiff’s breach of duty of disclosure regarding multiple hospitalization experience.

GH I JF F. F.

arrow