logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.03.27 2018가합17979
부당이득금
Text

1. The part of the instant lawsuit dismissing the claim for nullification of the indication of intention to terminate the insurance relationship.

2. The plaintiff's remainder.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 18, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with the insured and the beneficiary of the insurance money from December 18, 2007 to December 18, 2040, “C contract” (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”). According to the instant insurance contract, seven diseases surgery costs are KRW 1,00,000, and diagnosis costs are KRW 10,000,000.

B. At the time of the instant insurance contract, the Plaintiff responded to the purport that “I have not received diagnosis, treatment, hospitalization, surgery, or medication other than those received from a doctor during the latest five years,” as to the question of “I have been diagnosed by, or received from, a doctor during the latest five years.”

C. On April 1, 2010, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in D Hospital, and was diagnosed as “patching and chatching satise satise satise satise satise satise satise satise” (hereinafter “instant insurance accident”), and discharged on April 16, 2010.

After that, the Plaintiff claimed insurance money against the Defendant under the insurance contract of this case.

E. However, on June 1, 2010, the Defendant expressed to the Plaintiff that the instant insurance contract should be terminated on the ground of the Plaintiff’s breach of duty of disclosure, and on June 3, 2010, the Defendant paid KRW 5,000,000 (2,795,839) and KRW 1,373,616 of the hospitalization medical expenses of KRW 50,000,000, equivalent to 500,000, 500, 500, 500, 500, 795,839, and 1,373,616, and the Plaintiff did not raise any objection with regard thereto prior to the instant lawsuit.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1, 6 through 8, Eul 1 through 4, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant insured event constitutes grounds for the payment of insurance proceeds stipulated in the instant insurance contract, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 1,00,000 and KRW 10,000 of the diagnosis cost out of the 7th disease surgery cost and the stroke, and the instant insurance contract on June 3, 2010.

arrow