2019Na59038 (main office) Confirmation of the existence of an obligation

2019 459632 Insurance proceeds

A Stock Company

Law Firm Gangnam-LLC, Attorneys Cho Byung-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

1. B

2. C

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others

Incheon District Court Decision 2018Gadan202131, 2018Gadan decided April 25, 2019

24732 (Counterclaim) Judgment

October 18, 2019

December 13, 2019

1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) by aggregating the principal lawsuit and counterclaims.

1. Purport of claim

In relation to the insured events described in paragraph (2) of the attached list of the judgment of the court of first instance, it is confirmed that there is no insurance obligation against the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) based on the insurance contract described in paragraph (1) of the attached list of the above attached list.

Counterclaim: The Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendants 50,000,000 won each of them, and 5% per annum from October 16, 2017 to the service date of a duplicate of the counterclaim of this case, and 15% per annum from the following day to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal;

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part on the principal lawsuit is revoked. With respect to the insurance accident described in paragraph (2) of the attached Table 2 of the judgment of first instance, it is confirmed that the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay insurance money to the Defendants under an insurance contract stated in the above attached Table 1 does not exist. Of the counterclaim of the judgment of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff among the counterclaim

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The grounds for appeal by the Plaintiff are the same purport as the argument in the first instance trial, and even if the evidence additionally submitted in the trial is presented, the fact-finding and determination in the first instance court is recognized as legitimate. Even if the method of the deceased’s execution is somewhat time, compared with other methods, it is determined that there is no particular time to distinguish between friendlyness and plannedness. In light of other methods, the actions before the deceased’s death cannot be deemed as “influently carrying out the preparation by intentionally with intent” as the Plaintiff’s assertion. In full view of the foregoing, it is sufficient to deem that the actions were conducted under the condition that the deceased cannot make a free decision. In full view of the past history, medical history, inclination, behavior, behavior method, and mental and medical opinion on the deceased, etc., recognized by records and evidence, it is difficult to deem that the deceased died through free decision-making.

This court's reasoning is the same as the part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this court's reasoning is accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit is dismissed as it is without merit. The defendants' claim of the counterclaim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and all appeals against the plaintiff's principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Il-soo

Judges Kim Gung-gi

Judges Kim Jong-sung