[1] The meaning of "accident", which is an accident under the terms and conditions of life insurance, and the burden of proof for such accident (=the claimant for insurance)

[2] The case holding that, in the event the insured dies from the electric train in which the insured get off the subway platform that is prohibited from entering the subway station while under the influence of alcohol through the subway station, it constitutes an accident which is an insurance accident, which is an accident under the insurance clause, even if gross negligence is so excessive that the insured loses the ability to determine or lacks the ability to determine,

[3] Where an insurance contract which covers the death of another person as an insured event does not fulfill the duty to explain that the insurance solicitor is required to obtain written consent from the other person who is the insured, and the insurance contract becomes null and void by signing in lieu of the consent column of the insured, whether the insurance company is liable to compensate for damages to the policyholder who is not entitled to receive the insurance proceeds (affirmative)

[1] The term "accident" among the requirements of an insurance accident covered by a personal insurance contract means an accident caused by a cause unforeseeable by the insured, which means an accident which is neither intentional nor foreseeable, and which brings about an unforeseeable result in ordinary process. The insurer has the burden of proof as to the contingency of such an accident.

[2] The case holding that in the event that the insured is faced with the electric trains that go through the subway station while under the influence of alcohol and the insured died, it constitutes an accident which is an insurance accident, which is an accident under the insurance clause, even if gross negligence is so excessive that the insured loses the ability to judge or lacks the ability to judge.

[3] Notwithstanding the duty of care to explain the fact that an insurance solicitor as an insurance expert should obtain a written consent from the insured in the insurance contract which covers the death of another person as an insured event, and to take measures to conclude the insurance contract with the written consent of the insured, if the insurance solicitor did not know of the above fact at the time of concluding the insurance contract and did not explain to the policyholder the above fact and caused the policyholder to substitute the insured's signature in the column for consent of the insured and caused the loss that the policyholder would not receive the insurance money due to the invalidity of the reason that the insurance contract was not obtained the insured's written consent, the insurance company is liable as an insurance broker for compensation for the loss that

[1] Article 727 of the Commercial Act / [2] Article 732-2 of the Commercial Act / [3] Article 731 of the Commercial Act, Article 158 (1) of the Insurance Business Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Da2814 delivered on October 13, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2674), Supreme Court Decision 2001Da27579 delivered on August 21, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 2047) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 90Da12373 delivered on June 25, 1991 (Gong1991, 1997), Supreme Court Decision 98Da2814 delivered on October 13, 1998 (Gong198Ha, 2674 delivered on October 27, 1998), Supreme Court Decision 98Da16043 delivered on April 16, 197 (Gong198Da19794 delivered on April 196, 197) / [309Da19794 delivered on April 196, 197)

Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Park Sung-won et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)

Seoul District Court Decision 200Na76719, 76726 delivered on July 20, 200

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3

The term "accident" among the requirements of an accident covered by a personal insurance contract means an accident caused by a cause unforeseeable to the insured, which means an accident which is neither intentional nor foreseeable, and which brings about an unforeseeable result in ordinary process. As to the contingency of such accident, the claimant shall bear the burden of proof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Da2814, Oct. 13, 1998; 2001Da27579, Aug. 21, 2001).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the non-party 1 (date of birth omitted) was unable to find that the non-party 1 had an accident of this case, which occurred in the non-party 2's front line with the non-party 1's mother, and the non-party 1 had an accident of this case on the construction site for about 20 years, and that the non-party 1 had an accident of this case on the non-party 1's front line with the non-party 2's front line. The non-party 1 had an accident of this case on the non-party 2's front line and the non-party 3's front line, and it was hard to find that the non-party 1 had an accident of this case on the non-party 1's front line and the non-party 2 had an accident of this case on the non-party 1's front line and the non-party 2 had an accident of this case on the non-party 1's front line.

2. As to the fourth ground for appeal

The court below held that the non-party 4, an insurance solicitor of the plaintiff company, as an insurance expert, was liable to compensate the defendant for damages caused by the non-party 4 while conducting the insurance solicitation of this case pursuant to Article 158 (1) of the Insurance Business Act, and the defendant is not aware of the above fact and did not explain it to the defendant at the time of concluding the insurance contract of this case and let the defendant sign the non-party 1 instead of the defendant at the time of signing the insurance contract of this case. Thus, the non-party 4, as an insurance solicitor of this case, was liable to compensate for damages caused by the defendant who is the policyholder when concluding the insurance contract of this case, because the non-party 4, as an insurance solicitor of this case, did not properly read the matters that should be known in the letter of subscription for the insurance contract of this case and did not obtain the consent of the non-party 1 in writing, and therefore, it is reasonable to view that the ratio of negligence of the defendant is considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all 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 Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)