logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.09.06 2018가단56443
손해배상(기) 청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

Reasons

1. On March 23, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she entered into a contract with the Defendant for “E” as described in the following table (hereinafter “instant insurance”) via an insurance solicitor D affiliated with the Defendant, and paid KRW 85,185,000 from March 23, 2016 to November 2016.

At the time of entering into the instant insurance contract on March 23, 2062, G 1,815,000 won (1,815,000 won) of the insurance premium maturity of 1.5 billion won (7,650,000 won) of the insured subscription amount, D explained that in relation to the instant insurance, the total amount of the subscription amount exceeds the paid principal by adding the corporate tax saving amount and the termination refund after the lapse of four years from the subscription, and the total subscription amount is recognized as losses.

However, since the instant insurance contract does not recognize the total paid-in premium as losses unlike D’s explanation, the Plaintiff demanded the return of the premium to the Defendant, but the Defendant rejected it, and terminated the instant insurance contract as of February 1, 2017 on the ground of the Plaintiff’s unpaid premium on February 3, 2017.

Ultimately, the Plaintiff suffered damages of KRW 85,185,00, the amount of the insurance premium paid. This is due to the fact that D, an insurance solicitor, knew that the total amount of the insurance premium paid in the instant case was not recognized as a corporation’s loss, was deemed as the total amount of the paid-in premium, and thus, the corporate tax reduction effect was significant. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the said damages pursuant to Article 102(1)

2. Circumstances that are considered as a whole of the arguments in Gap 7-1, 2, 7, 19-1, and 2, i.e., the insurance of this case constitutes pure guarantee insurance with no maturity refund; ② the insurance of this case is recognized as a cancellation refund and its ratio is set by insurance period; however, the cancellation refund is set at a certain time during the insurance period; and ③ the maturity is set at zero won after the reduction thereafter.

arrow