(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.16 2017나52193

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.16 2017나52193

보험금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following '2. Additional Judgment' as to the allegations emphasized or added by the plaintiff in this court, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. The Plaintiff was unable to avoid further determination with the intention of committing suicide.

Even if this is expected to be addicted to the addiction by the carbon oxide, and it does not have to have predicted or could have anticipated the image due to the booming, the plaintiff's image due to the booming is the insurance accident of the insurance contract of this case.

Therefore, it can be seen that the Plaintiff could have sufficiently predicted not only the addiction caused by the U.S.carbon but also the images caused by the booms, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff was able to see the overall purport of the arguments on the facts as seen earlier; (b) the Plaintiff took 18 eggs of the water surface with the intent to commit suicide at his own place of residence; and (c) the Plaintiff’s male-child group found the Plaintiff at the time when 3 through 4 of the Plaintiff discovered the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s male-child group, at the time when she discovered the Plaintiff, could have attempted to stop suicide; (d) the Plaintiff could have sufficiently predicted not only the addiction caused by the U.S.carbon but also the booms at the time when she puts the Plaintiff into several times; and (e) even if the Plaintiff 7 was put into the booms, as alleged by the Plaintiff, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff’s act was caused by the Plaintiff’s act in question.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and thus, the plaintiff.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2020.05.07 2019고합33

-서울남부지방법원 2019.12.20 2019고합431

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2020.02.05 2019고합248

-서울고등법원(춘천) 2020.09.16 2020노78

-인천지방법원 2016.11.04 2016고합585