Seoul National State Map

2. EO (**************************))

Seoul National State Map

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Lee In- State, Park In- State, United States

Seoul AER

MR of representative director

Attorney Park Jong-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant

2. Non-life insurance company:

Seoul State of State

Representative Director and NationalS

Attorney Kim Sung- State, Justice Park Jong-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

3. ■■ 화재해상보험 주식회사

Seoul MMM

Representative Director;

Attorney Park Jong-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

1. After finding the facts as stated in its reasoning, the court below rejected the Defendants’ claim against the Defendants, who are both the Plaintiffs, by determining that: (a) Bright, as well as the Plaintiff’s home country, had an insurance company claim and received large amount of insurance money with respect to the fire accident several times in the past, the fire accident occurred in the original warehouse; (b) there is little possibility that the fire would be naturally spread within a short time; (c) there is an oil trace that can be seen as a trace of fire; (d) the fire was discovered at various places in the fire site of this case; and (e) the fire was presumed to be fire in the comprehensive report prepared by the fire officer; and (e) there is doubt that the fire of this case would be a fire of this case; and (e) B right, B right, and the Plaintiff’s home country, in relation to the fire accident of this case, could have acquired the insurance money from the Defendant’s home country or seek for the payment of the insurance money from the Defendant to the Defendant’s home government or the Defendant’s representative for the instant fire.

2. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

Where the terms and conditions of the fire insurance contract provide that "no compensation shall be made for any damage caused by the intentional or gross negligence of the policyholder, the insured, or his/her legal representative, or for the insured's relatives or employees who share the same household with the insured to receive the insurance proceeds," the insurer is responsible for proving the facts constituting the grounds for the above exemption in order to be exempted from the liability to pay the insurance proceeds, and Here, the proof means that the judge's conviction reaches the degree of conviction. The conviction refers to an absolute accuracy without any possibility of objection, such as proving natural science or education, but it refers to the probability that is highly probable to believe that it is true and doubtful in ordinary people's daily life (see Supreme Court Decisions 2008Da72578, 72585, Mar. 26, 2009; 2009Da56603, 56610, Dec. 10, 2009).

In light of the above legal principles and the records, the circumstances cited by the court below alone do not lead to doubt or conjecture as to whether it was not intentionally causing the fire of this case. Furthermore, the following circumstances revealed by the record are revealed by the National Scientific Investigation Institute, namely, the fire of this case, "the fire site of this case is in a situation where it is impossible to make specific identification of the point or fire source due to severe combustion and transformation." The oil level discovered from the warehouse floor of this case can not be ruled out to be left due to other causes, not fire prevention. The oil level found from the warehouse of this case can not be easily found even if there was frequent traffic of people around the warehouse of this case from 1 p.m. 40 minutes prior to the time when the fire of this case occurred, and there was no doubt that the fire of this case could not be easily discovered even if there was a large number of witnesses of the fire at the time of the fire of this case. In light of the above circumstances, there was no doubt that the fire of this case was a fire of this case.

It is difficult to see it.

Nevertheless, the court below concluded that the fire in this case was caused by Bright of Bright and the fire fighting of Plaintiff Park, solely based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the terms and conditions of exemption in an insurance contract or on the burden of proof as to the existence of the grounds for exemption, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the grounds for appeal pointing this out

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Gin-tae

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn

Justices Yang Chang-soo