logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.05.13 2014가합46900
보험에관한 소송
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 13, 2008, the Plaintiff concluded the instant insurance contract with the Defendant with the insured and the contractor, and with the insurance premium of KRW 50,000 per month.

B. On November 28, 2008, the Defendant received hospitalized treatment for 23 days from the time to June 10, 2014, as shown in the attached Table 2, from that time, for 28 days, as shown in the attached Table 2, from the time to June 10, 2014, and received insurance proceeds of KRW 21,695,119 in total from the Plaintiff.

C. Meanwhile, between October 13, 2008 and November 10, 2010, the Defendant concluded a total of seven insurance contracts with the Defendant as the insured and the contractor as follows, and received the payment of KRW 60,573,292 in total as the insurance proceeds.

Whether monthly insurance premiums are maintained under the name of the company as of the date of the contract, 1 October 13, 2008, 48,200 MG damage insurance, 58,150 won maintenance on October 13, 2008, 3208, 4208, 37,027, 37,027, 28,040 won maintenance on October 14, 2008, 300 won maintenance on October 14, 2008, 3208, and 37,027,00 won maintenance on October 14, 2008; 60,000 won termination on December 19, 2008; 7,000 won extinguishment on March 31, 2009; 37,000 won or less; 150,000 won each of the orders to submit financial transaction information (the same shall apply to each of the orders to submit evidence).

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the insurance contract of this case was not concluded by the Defendant to prepare for a pure risk of life and body, but was concluded for the purpose of pretending the insurance accident by entering into multiple insurance contracts, or for the purpose of obtaining insurance proceeds with the degree of exaggeration above the actual degree, and is contrary to good morals and other social order. As such, the insurance contract of this case is null and void under Article 103 of the

3. Determination

(a)one policyholder of the relevant laws shall enter into multiple insurance contracts;

arrow