[2] Whether the insurer may terminate the insurance contract in a case where it is proved that the occurrence of the insured events was not attributable to the failure or misrepresentation of material facts by the policyholder (negative)

[2] In a case where it is proved that the occurrence of an insurance accident was not based on the fact that the policyholder was not informed of the occurrence of the insurance accident, the insurance contract may not be terminated on the ground that the insurance accident was not notified of the

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the direct cause of the deceased non-party 1's death is due to the scarbing-out surgery by high blood pressure, and that the above judgment of the court below is acceptable in light of the records, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misconception of facts due to incomplete deliberation, as pointed out in the grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal as to this point are not acceptable.

2. On the second ground for appeal

Even if the policyholder or the insured has failed to notify material facts intentionally or by gross negligence at the time of an insurance contract, if the insurer knew or was unaware of such facts at the time of the contract due to gross negligence, the insurer cannot terminate the contract by citing a violation of the duty of disclosure (proviso of Article 651 of the Commercial Act). The insurer's bad faith or gross negligence referred to in this context includes not only the insurer, but also the bad faith or gross negligence of the person in a position to receive notice for the insurer as well as the so-called insurer's insurance (insurance). However, even if the insurer had a medical doctor conducted a medical examination of the policyholder, etc., unless the medical examination was conducted as an assistant of the insurer who provided the insurer with the risk measuring data, the doctor's intention cannot be deemed to have known or failed to know it as a serious negligence of the insurer. Such interpretation also accords with the purpose of the Medical Service Act prohibiting disclosure of secrets or disclosure of records against the patient.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on the evidence adopted in its judgment, established a comprehensive health examination center under its jurisdiction after January 5, 1995, which provides a comprehensive health examination for high-amount policyholders who pay a premium of at least 400,000 won every month and selected persons among insurance contract partners. However, this is left at the customer's judgment solely because they serve free of charge for customer management, which is not subject to health examination, and there is no disadvantage under an insurance contract. The result of the examination entered in the computer system of the above center was only used as health care data of the relevant diagnosis patient just as usual medical personnel, and it cannot be leaked to the outside without the consent of the diagnosis patient under the Medical Service Act, and it is difficult to find that the defendant knew or was unable to access the above data from the department related to the insurance, and it was difficult to find that the result of the comprehensive health examination center of the defendant's medical examination was non-party 1, 195.

In light of the above legal principles and records, we affirm the judgment and measures of the court below, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts due to failure to conduct all the deliberation, or contrary to the principle of trust and good faith. Meanwhile, in a case where it is proved that the occurrence of an insurance accident was not due to the fact that the policyholder was not notified or was not falsely notified, the insurance contract cannot be terminated on the ground of such non-notification or misrepresentation (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da52082 delivered on February 25, 1994). However, it is so decided as per the ground of appeal that the insurance contract cannot be terminated on the ground of the non-disclosure or misrepresentation (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da52082 delivered on February 25, 1994). However, it is so decided as per the judgment of the court below on the causation.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)