2. B

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an insurance contract as shown in the attached Table 1 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant insurance contract”) with Nonparty A (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) as the insured, and the Defendants are the parents of the deceased.

B. The main contents of the terms and conditions of the instant insurance contract relating to the instant case are as shown in attached Form 3.

C. On October 8, 2009, the Deceased was found to be hidden in the boiler pipes in the boiler pipes, when he entered the Air Force as a sergeant and worked at the Korea Air Force Academy (hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”).

D. Although the instant accident was treated as the first simple suicide, on November 9, 201, Defendant A filed a civil petition with the Ministry of National Defense to re-examine the cause of the deceased’s death. Accordingly, the Ministry of National Defense concluded that, based on the investigation records at the time and the result of the examination of the 13 relevant witnesses, such as the commander of the unit unit to which the deceased belongs, etc., conducted a reinvestigation on the cause of the deceased’s death based on the investigation records and the results of the investigation on the deceased’s 13 expert members, such as the commander of the unit unit to which the deceased belongs, etc., “the deceased is recognized as having died because he/she was unable to free will due to depression during military service, verbal abuse of his/her superior, etc., and the Air Force Chief confirmed that the deceased died on duty by issuing a written confirmation of death on April 12, 2013

E. Meanwhile, the main contents of the result of the examination of the deceased of the Busan University’s psychological department, based on which the deceased’s death on duty was confirmed, are as follows.

1. Characteral characteristics of the Deceased;

In light of the deceased’s 2 South and North Korea’s living standards, the deceased’s 1st South and North Korea’s 2nd South and North Korea’s 1st South and 2nd South Korea were presumed to have developed at a relatively low family, and the relationship with their family members seems to have been humped. However, the deceased’s 2nd South and North Korea’s 1st South Korea 2nd South Korea 2nd South Korea 2nd South Korea 2nd South Korea 2nd South Korea 2nd South Korea 2nd North Korea 2nd North Korea 2nd North Korea 2nd North Korea 2nd North Korea 2nd North Korea 2nd North Korea 2nd North Korea 2nd North Korea 2nd North Korea 2nd North Korea 2nd North Korea 2nd North Korea 2nd North Korea 2nd North Korea 2nd North Korea 2nd North Korea 2nd North Korea 2nd North Korea 3nd North Korea 2nd North Korea 2nd North Korea 2nd North Korea 2007.

The deceased appears to have been subject to continuous speech and physical violence from the early 0th century and disregarding his motive. This situation is understood to have continued until the time when the deceased died.2) The deceased was bound by the above Drupture maintenance management office, as there were nine officers and one appointed soldier other than the deceased, and his superior were able to receive instructions from his superior for a long time. The members of the unit who were on the deceased at the time were assigned to the position of 90 military officers and were 200 military officers who were assigned to the deceased, so that they could not have been assigned to the position of 90 military officers and 9 military officers who were assigned to the position of 90 military officers and were assigned to the position of 90 military officers and were not assigned to the position of 90 military officers and were 9 military officers to have been assigned to the position of 90 military officers who were on duty, so that they could not have been assigned to the position of 90 military officers and were 90 military officers who had been assigned to the position of 90 military officers.

As the deceased spreads between the soldiers inside the military unit that "the deceased dumpeded against dump," the deceased dump was changed to dump, and the deceased dumpedd on October 8, 2009.3. The deceased's dump dump was difficult to promptly and accurately dumpate their military lives. The deceased's dump was sumped with stress on the deceased's dump, such as stress, and so on. The deceased's dumpical disorder caused extreme stress and stress on the deceased's dumpymical disorder. The deceased's dumpical disorder, such as stress, had no stress on the deceased's dump, and so on, it appears that the deceased's dump had no stress on the deceased's dump and so on.

4.4. The factors leading to the death of the comprehensive network of opinion were found to be the main causes of stress, such as personal history, inner characteristics, the ability to cope with unexpected stress, etc. caused by the failure to perform duties, and insult and verbal abuse, etc. caused by the failure to perform duties.In a situation where stress was unable to be controlled in the absence of the necessary measures to solve stress due to internal fluorial nature, there was a complex sensing that it was difficult to control the stress, such as depression, uneasiness, and tension, and even if the risk of suicide was reported in the personal examination conducted around September 2009, the prompt action was not taken. In addition, the stress was aggravated due to the negative flusence in the military unit for the change of assignment at the end of September 2010, and the stress was aggravated due to this, it seems that the self-scambing of the person whose judgment ability has been lowered.

F. On April 30, 2013, the Defendants, the deceased’s inheritor, claimed insurance money under the instant insurance contract against the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 3-1 to 3, Eul evidence 1, 2-5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The death of the Plaintiff’s deceased is caused by suicide, and thus does not constitute a disaster due to lack of contingent and external nature. In addition, according to the terms and conditions of the instant insurance contract, the deceased constitutes an intentional damage to himself/herself, and thus constitutes an exemption

Even if the claim of this case falls under the cause of payment of household insurance money, the prescription period is completed after the lapse of two years from 2009, 10, 8, and 209 of the deceased’s death. Therefore, there is no insurance claim against the Defendants.

B. The Defendants

Since the deceased committed suicide while in military service due to harsh treatment, etc., the insured's intentional injury or suicide, which is the reason for the exemption of the insurer's liability, does not constitute "accident caused by the insured's intentional death" or "suicide." The statute of limitations of the Defendants' insurance claim against the plaintiff should be calculated from April 12, 2013, which is the date of the decision on death of the deceased, rather than the date of the death of the deceased.

3. Determination

A. Whether it constitutes a disaster or an exemption from liability

In the case of an insurance contract which covers death as an insured event, suicide refers to an act of intentionally cutting his/her own life for the purpose of the insurance contract and causing the result of death, and the insured has caused the result of death in a situation where it is impossible to make a free decision due to mental illness, etc.

Since it does not include the death, if the act of direct cause which caused the death result in a situation in which the insured could not make a free decision is caused by the ex post facto factor, the death.

The insured is an contingent accident that is not caused by the intention of the insured and may constitute death, which is an insured incident (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da5378, Jun. 23, 2015).

In light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable to view that the deceased caused death in a situation where free decision-making is impossible or considerably limited, taking into account the following circumstances revealed in light of the facts acknowledged earlier and the purport of the entire pleadings. Therefore, the instant accident is an contingent accident that directly caused the death due to external factors, and is not caused by the deceased’s intentional act, and does not constitute the reason for exemption from the insurer’s liability.

① In light of the characteristics of a military life, which is closed and deceptive order strict, separate consideration and consideration for a person’s disease is absolutely required. In particular, more separate consideration and timely measures are required for a person who had experienced symptoms prior to entering the military, such as the deceased, and who could not easily adapt to the military life due to resistant nature. Nevertheless, from the beginning of moving into the military without special consideration for the deceased who experienced difficulties in adaptation to the military life and repeated frequent numbers of times, the stress of the deceased appeared to have been accumulated to the military register to the extent that it is difficult to control himself/herself.

Even if the deceased appears to have been aware of the difficulty of adaptation, in particular, unlike other soldiers, even before the death of his/her military personnel, he/she did not take any particular measure against the deceased. In particular, the deceased directly expressed his/her superior such as a principal officer officer officer officer officer, etc. the difficulty in adaptation to military life and extreme stress, and the Defendants also appealed against the principal officer officer officer officer, and requested the change of assignment, but failed to accept the request for the change of assignment, and thus, the deceased was virtually neglected.

③ The deceased showed symptoms of the entire suicide, such as “the nautical miles caused by serious stress since before the death in particular,” and the personal character examination conducted on September 28, 2009, also did not take prompt measures, i.e., measures to change the assignment to the position of the deceased. After the death on October 5, 2009, there was a measure to change the assignment to the position of the deceased. However, as the negative question about the change of the assignment to the position was spread in the military unit, it seems that the conflict and stress of the deceased were more severe, and eventually, it seems that a extreme decision was made so that it is impossible to make a normal and free decision.

B. Determination as to the claim on the extinction of prescription

1) A claim to a insurance claim is merely an abstract right before the occurrence of the insurance accident, but it is possible to exercise the right from the time when the insurance accident occurred, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, the extinctive prescription of the insurance claim should be interpreted to run from the time when the insurance accident occurred. However, even where it is objectively unclear whether the insurance accident occurred, and it is impossible for the holder of the insurance claim to know the occurrence of the insurance accident without negligence, the interpretation that the extinctive prescription of the insurance claim will run from the time when the insurance accident occurred is too harsh to the holder of the insurance claim, and cannot be deemed to conform to the concept of social justice and equity, as well as to the reason for the existence of the extinctive prescription system. Therefore, if it is objectively difficult to ascertain the occurrence of the insurance accident from an objective perspective, it is interpreted that the extinctive prescription of the insurance claim will run from the time when the holder of the insurance claim knew or could have known the occurrence of the insurance accident (see Supreme Court Decision

2) In light of the foregoing legal principles, it is reasonable to view that, before April 12, 2013, it was objectively apparent whether the insured event occurred or not, which was confirmed as to the deceased’s death on duty, the Defendants were unable to know the occurrence of the insurance accident without negligence. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendants’ extinctive prescription of the insurance claim against the Plaintiff based on the instant insurance contract against the Plaintiff runs from April 12, 2013, where it was deemed that the deceased’s death was known or could have been known that the death constituted a death on duty. The Defendants were entitled to claim insurance money against the Plaintiff on April 30, 2013, which was two years after the said date. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the extinctive prescription of the said insurance claim has expired is without merit.

① The initial accident was concluded as a simple suicide of the deceased. In the case of suicide, the insurer’s exemption from liability under the insurance contract of this case, and the Defendants seem to have difficulty in claiming insurance money against the Plaintiff before the cause of the death of the deceased was accurately identified.

② After the instant accident, the Defendants filed a civil petition with multiple routes on the suspicion that there was another cause for the death of the Deceased, but all were not accepted. Due to the characteristics of the closed military unit, the Defendants could not easily secure materials, statements, etc. related to the deceased’s death, and thus, could have been difficult to understand the exact cause or circumstance of the death.

③ After that, on November 7, 2011, Defendant A conducted a reinvestigation on the instant accident to the Ministry of National Defense, following the results of continuous verbal abuse and insult of the deceased, only revealed the fact that the deceased had suffered extreme stress and had failed to take appropriate measures within the military unit despite having shown various signs of suicide. On April 12, 2013, Defendant A committed suicide in a state that the deceased could not make a normal and free decision due to continuous verbal abuse and insult.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Gin-Un

Judges Efficacy