(영문) 전주지방법원 2017.07.14 2016나8964 | 리걸엔진

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) 전주지방법원 2017.07.14 2016나8964

보험금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to using the following parts, and therefore, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. On the second page of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part to be used by the court of first instance, "No contact shall be made, and the first page shall be made," [the contact shall not be made.] [The first page of the judgment of the court of first instance shall not be contacted.]

Part 3 of the judgment of the first instance court, "No. 2015-Ma48 of this Court" is "No. 2015-Mao48 of the Jeonju District Court's 2015-Mao48".

From 3th to 5th of the judgment of the first instance court, the third to 3th of the judgment is as follows.

2. Judgment as to the plaintiff's primary argument

A. The gist of the assertion is that the Deceased’s death was caused by gross negligence or was in a state in which he is unable to make a free decision in a state where he was unable to make a decision. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff mutual aid money for the death of a disaster pursuant to the instant special agreement.

B. According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view the deceased as suicide by intention, not by gross negligence, because it is judged that the deceased voluntarily released a flammable liquid stay in the room and imprising him/her, and that he/she was cut away.

In addition, even if the deceased was under the influence of alcohol immediately before the death, in light of the purport that the Plaintiff, the spouse of the deceased, was unable to make a free decision due to mental illness, etc., it is difficult to readily conclude that the deceased could not make a free decision due to mental illness, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

C. According to the theory of the resolution, the Deceased.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2019.09.26 2018나69595

-창원지방법원 2019.05.30 2018나52164

-대구지방법원 2021.04.08 2020나305278

-광주지방법원 2016.09.30 2016나51121

-부산지방법원 2017.11.22 2017나47953