[보험금][집48(1)민,25;공2000.4.1.(103),669]
[1] The validity of a life insurance contract concluded solely for the purpose of acquiring insurance proceeds by pretending the insurance accident from the beginning (negative)
[2] In a case where one of the co-inheritors, who did not intentionally cause an insurance accident, concluded a life insurance contract with the inheritor as the beneficiary for the purpose of receiving the insurance proceeds by murdering the insured, whether another co-inheritors who did not intentionally cause an insurance accident can claim the insurance proceeds (negative)
[1] Since a life insurance contract is an agreement to pay a certain amount of money to a person's life, there is a risk of moral hazard, such as intentionally murdering the insured for the purpose of acquiring money, so good faith is strongly demanded as to the conclusion of the contract. Thus, if a life insurance contract is concluded solely for the purpose of acquiring insurance money by pretending an insured incident from the beginning, there is a high risk of causing illegal act of taking advantage of a person's life as a means of human life, and allowing the payment of insurance money according to the life insurance contract concluded for this purpose would deviate from social reasonableness by encouraging a speculative spirit to gain unjust profits by abusing the insurance contract. Thus, such a life insurance contract is null and void as a juristic act contrary to social order.
[2] A life insurance contract concluded for the purpose of receiving insurance money by murdering the insured is null and void as an act contrary to social order. Therefore, in the event that one of the co-inheritors concluded a life insurance contract with the inheritor as the beneficiary for the purpose of receiving insurance money by murdering the insured and murdering the insured, other co-inheritors may not claim insurance money against the insurer even if they did not intentionally cause the insured accident.
[1] Article 103 of the Civil Code, Article 659 (1) of the Commercial Code / [2] Article 103 of the Civil Code, Article 659 (1) of the Commercial Code
Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Jae-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Mart Life Insurance Co., Ltd and one other (Attorneys Han Han-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Seoul High Court Decision 99Na19454 delivered on July 29, 1999
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed) are examined as follows.
A life insurance contract is an agreement to pay money to a person's life, which is likely to cause moral hazard, such as intentionally murdering the insured for the purpose of acquiring money. Thus, the good faith is strongly demanded as to the conclusion of the contract. In the event that a life insurance contract is concluded solely for the purpose of acquiring insurance money by pretending an insured incident from the beginning, there is a large risk of inducing illegal conduct of taking benefits as a means of human life, and allowing the payment of insurance money in accordance with the life insurance contract concluded for this purpose would deviate from social reasonableness by encouraging speculative spirit to gain unjust benefits by abusing the insurance contract. Thus, such a life insurance contract shall be null and void as a juristic act contrary to social order.
According to the facts established by the court below, the non-party 1 purchased a life insurance contract with the non-party 2, who is one's wife, as the insured, and obtained the disguised insurance money by murdering the non-party 2. The non-party 2 conspired with the non-party 3 to murder the non-party 2 by pretending to be a traffic accident with the non-party 3 on June 1997, and introduced the non-party 4 as the non-party 3 with the non-party 3 on July 9 of the same year. The defendant signed the life insurance contract with the non-party 2 and the beneficiary as the heir of the non-party 2 and paid the insurance money first on the same day on the same day, and the non-party 1 was the non-party 2's mother who was the non-party 4's heir of the non-party 2, who was the non-party 1,000 won for the purpose of murdering the non-party 2 with the non-party 1's death contract with the non-party 2.
Although there is no inappropriate point in the reasoning of the lower court, the conclusion that the instant life insurance contract is justifiable in rejecting the Plaintiff’s claim for insurance money on the ground that it is null and void as an act contrary to social order. Therefore, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on Article 103 of the Civil Act or by violating the Supreme Court
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Lee In-hee (Presiding Justice)