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

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 2 others

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

It is confirmed that the maturity of hospitalization policy is valid by the time of 100.

A. A. Around 2005, the Plaintiff entered into an accident insurance contract with the Defendant, a company operating the insurance business, etc., for New BB hospitalization (hereinafter “accident insurance contract of this case”). Around 2007, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into an accident insurance contract for hospitalization expenses (hereinafter “the disease insurance contract of this case”).

B. The instant accident insurance and disease insurance are a one-year contract under which the insurance period is one, and the automatic renewal has been carried out each year, and the period of automatic renewal has arrived after the Plaintiff’s age reaches 64 years of age in 2018. The instant disease insurance became 65 years of age in 2019 and its automatic renewal period has arrived.

C. The instant accident insurance and disease insurance are stipulated in each special clause as follows.

Article 2 (Automatic Renewal of Special Agreement for Guarantee)

2. The insured person's age on the renewal date shall be within the age determined by the company.

2. Determination as to the ground for appeal No. 1

A. The Plaintiff failed to properly understand the restrictions on the automatic renewal of the instant accident insurance and disease insurance at the time of subscribing to the instant accident insurance and disease insurance. The details of the automatic renewal restrictions were important in terms of the contract, and there was no specific explanation about their meaning, and the insurance policy or terms and conditions issued by the Plaintiff do not stipulate the time of restriction on the automatic renewal. While other insurance products subscribed to by the Plaintiff remain at 80 years of maturity and 100 years of age, the Plaintiff intended to maintain the insurance contract upon subscribing to the instant accident insurance and disease insurance. Accordingly, the Defendant cannot assert the restriction on the automatic renewal, and the instant accident insurance and disease insurance should be automatically renewed until the Plaintiff reaches 100 years of age.”

B. In full view of the purport of the evidence No. 2 and the argument, the defendant, while making a telephone conversation with the plaintiff as to the conclusion of the accident insurance and disease insurance of this case, can recognize the fact that the defendant automatically extended the accident insurance of this case every one year from the time of 64 years to the time of 65 years unless either of the contractors has otherwise expressed his intention, "the disease insurance of this case may be automatically renewed every one year from the time of 65 years to the time of 65 months, and may refuse the renewal by expressing his intention to refuse the renewal pursuant to the special terms and conditions of the automatic renewal, and the company may refuse the renewal by considering the significant increase of risks of the insured annually. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant appears to have sufficiently explained to the plaintiff that the accident insurance of this case and disease insurance of this case are restricted according to the age and its meaning. Even if the plaintiff failed to properly explain the above explanation due to negligence, it cannot be viewed as a mistake of the defendant.

Furthermore, in light of the general fact that insurance premiums are discounted compared to the case where the automatic renewal is limited according to the age of the insured under special terms and conditions, and that the policyholder gains profit from the discount of insurance premiums, even if considering all the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff, it is difficult to view that the content of the contract on the time of restriction on the automatic renewal is invalid.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion premised on this is difficult to accept.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jae Jae-nam

Judges and Public Officials;