logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2015.03.20 2014다84190
보험금
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. When concluding an insurance contract which covers the death of another person as an insured accident, an insurance solicitor has the duty of care to give policyholders an opportunity to meet the requirements by giving specific and detailed explanation of the requirements such as the written consent of the insured, etc. to the policyholders so that the insurance contract is effective

If an insurance solicitor's insurance contract becomes null and void due to a defect in the above requirements without the above explanation, and as a result, the policyholder is not entitled to receive the insurance proceeds despite the occurrence of the insured events, the insurer shall be liable to compensate the policyholder for damages equivalent to the insurance proceeds pursuant to Article 102 (1) of the Insurance Business Act. However, in relation to the invalidity of the insurance contract due to a defect in the above requirements, the insurer shall not be liable to compensate for the insurer unless there is a cause attributable to the insurance solicitor's breach of duty of care, such as the duty to explain, or there is no causation between

2. On August 21, 2008, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, explained to the Plaintiff the grounds alleged by the Defendant’s insurance solicitor as the Plaintiff at the time of concluding a group insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with workers working in the instant workplace as the insured.

Even if there was no person who provided labor at the Plaintiff’s place of business, including the instant place of business, so it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff was unable to display an adequate insured worker, would have committed a collective insurance contract such as the instant insurance contract. Moreover, G, the insured, did not provide labor at the instant place of business at the time of entering into the instant insurance contract, and therefore, G’s insurance proceeds from death.

arrow