[1] The meaning of "legal act contrary to social order" under Article 103 of the Civil Code

[2] The validity of an insurance contract concluded for the purpose of a policyholder's fraudulent acquisition of insurance proceeds through a multiple insurance contract (=negative)

[3] Whether the purpose of an insurance contract can be ratified on the basis of various circumstances, such as the occupation and property condition of the policyholder, even though there is no direct evidence as to whether the insurance contract was concluded for the purpose of unjust acquisition of insurance proceeds (affirmative)

[4] The case holding that, in case where Gap entered into a multiple insurance contract with his wife Eul as Eul and Eul as Eul as Eul's insured, but Eul died due to traffic accident, Gap claims the payment of the insurance money, the above multiple insurance contracts are null and void against good morals and other social order under Article 103 of the Civil Code on the ground that it is ratified that the above multiple insurance contracts were concluded for the purpose of unlawful acquisition of insurance money in light of all the circumstances such as the past record of Eul's murdering Eul, the circumstances leading up to an unexpected insurance accident, and excessive insurance premium exceeding the economic aspects

[1] Article 103 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 103 of the Civil Act, Article 737 of the Commercial Act / [3] Article 103 of the Civil Act, Article 737 of the Commercial Act / [4] Article 103 of the Civil Act, Article 737 of the Commercial

[1] [2] [3] Supreme Court Decision 2005Da23858 Decided July 28, 2005 (Gong2005Ha, 1421) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 99Da56833 Decided February 11, 200 (Gong2000Sang, 686) Supreme Court Decision 9Da3311 Decided November 27, 2001 (Gong2002Sang, 144) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 99Da49064 Decided February 11, 200 (Gong200Sang, 669)

Plaintiff 1 and four others (Attorneys Kim Ho-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Dongbu Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. and 2 others (Attorneys Han Jong-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2007Na110758 decided January 9, 2009

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the mistake of facts or incomplete hearing due to the violation of the rules of evidence

The admission of evidence and fact-finding belong to the full power of the fact-finding court, and this is not a legitimate ground for appeal unless it goes beyond the limit of the principle of free evaluation of evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da77848 delivered on May 25, 2006, etc.).

원심은 적법하게 채택한 증거에 의하여, 원고 1과 처인 소외 1은 2002. 7.부터 2002. 10.까지 소외 1의 사망을 보험사고로 하는 6개의 보험계약을 체결한 상태였는데, 소외 1의 사망시 보험수익자인 법정상속인들이 받는 보험료 합계가 9억 1,500만 원이고, 월 보험료가 약 46만 원이었던 사실, 원고 1은 소외 1을 살해하여 보험금을 타낼 목적으로 2002. 10. 하순경 소외 2에게 뺑소니 사고를 위장하여 소외 1을 살해하여 주면, 보험금을 수령하여 1억 5천만 원을 주겠다면서 살인교사를 하였으나 소외 2가 이를 승낙하지 아니하여 그 뜻을 이루지 못하였고, 피고 동부화재해상보험 주식회사(이하 ‘동부화재’라 한다), 제일화재해상보험 주식회사(이하 ‘제일화재’라 한다)에 가입하였던 5개의 보험은 그 이후인 2003. 2.경부터 2004. 1.경까지 보험료 연체로 모두 실효되었으며, 원고 1은 그 후 살인교사미수죄로 기소되어 징역 1년 6월, 집행유예 3년의 유죄판결을 선고받아 확정된 사실, 원고 1과 소외 1은 대한생명보험 주식회사(이하 ‘대한생명’이라 한다)에 가입하였다가 보험료 연체로 인하여 실효되었던 보험계약을 2003. 6. 18. 연체보험료 2,926,392원을 납입하여 부활시킨 것을 비롯하여, 그 이후 지속적으로 보험을 추가 가입하거나 보험료 연체로 해지된 보험계약을 부활시켜 2004. 2.경에는 소외 1의 사망을 보험사고로 하는 8개의 보험계약(이하 ‘이 사건 각 보험계약’이라 한다)을 체결한 상태에 이르렀는데, 소외 1의 사망시 보험수익자인 법정상속인들이 받는 보험료 합계는 12억 5천만 원에 가까운 금액이고, 월 보험료가 약 80만 원이었던 사실, 이 사건 각 보험계약의 추가 체결이나 부활 당시 원고 1은 합계 1억 원 이상의 채무를 부담하고 있었고, 원고 1과 소외 1은 월세로 임차한 주택에 거주하고 있었으며, 원고 1은 약초채취를 통해 부정기적 수입을 얻는 이외 별다른 수입이 없었고, 소외 1은 폐품수집상에 근무하면서 월 95만 원 정도의 수입을 얻고 있는 상태였던 사실, 이 사건 각 보험계약 중 원고 1과 소외 1이 함께 피보험자인 1개의 보험계약을 제외하고 나머지 보험계약은 모두 소외 1이 피보험자로 되어 있었고, 매년 갱신되어 오던 자동차종합보험을 제외한 나머지 보험계약은 비록 소외 1이 보험계약자 명의인이지만 그 계약 체결이나 부활은 원고 1이 주도하였으며 소외 1은 보험계약 체결을 위한 자필서명만을 한 사실, 특히 원고 1은 2004. 2.초경 피고 동부화재, 제일화재에 대하여 보험료 연체로 실효되었던 보험의 부활 여부를 문의한 후, 2004. 2. 5. 피고 동부화재에 대하여는 연체보험료 합계 53만여 원 중 일부만 납부하고 나머지는 보험모집인이 부담하도록 하여 2개의 보험계약을 부활하도록 하고, 피고 제일화재로부터는 부활보험료 액수가 크다는 상담을 받자 2004. 2. 6. 2개의 보험계약을 새로 체결하면서 보험료 합계 30만 원을 지급하였는데, 위 각 보험계약은 소외 1이 2003년말 경부터 3개월간 급여를 지급받지 못하다가 2004. 2. 4.경 50만 원을 지급받은 직후에 부활되거나 체결된 사실, 원고 1과 소외 1은 이 사건 각 보험계약 중 자동차종합보험의 경우를 제외하고는 그 보험청약서를 작성함에 있어서 다른 보험계약의 체결 여부를 묻는 질문란에 ‘없다’라는 취지로 답변하거나 공란으로 남겨둔 사실, 2004. 3. 7. 소외 1이 운전한 차량에 원고 1이 동승하여 진행하다가 3차로에 정차중인 화물차량의 후미 적재함 부분으로 그대로 돌진하여 충돌하는 사고가 발생하였는데, 사고 직후 촬영된 사진에 의하면 운전석에 앉아 있던 소외 1의 오른팔 위로 안전벨트가 감겨 있었고, 사고 직후 병원으로 후송된 소외 1은 병원 도착 당시 추정사인 ‘환추후두관절탈골’로 이미 사망한 상태였으며, 원고 1은 우하지찰과상, 경추부 통증 등 경미한 상해만을 입은 사실 등을 각 인정하였는바, 위 법리와 기록에 비추어 살펴보면, 원심의 위와 같은 사실인정은 정당한 것으로 수긍할 수 있고, 거기에 상고이유에서 주장하는 바와 같은 채증법칙 위반이나 심리미진의 위법이 있다고 할 수 없다.

2. Whether each of the instant insurance contracts violates Article 103 of the Civil Act

An act of anti-social order null and void under Article 103 of the Civil Act not only goes against good morals and other social order, but also goes against social order by forcing the contents of the rights and obligations which are the object of the juristic act to legally enforce it or establishing social order conditions or monetary consideration to the juristic act, and includes cases where the motive of the juristic act indicated or known to the other party is anti-social order (see Supreme Court Decisions 9Da56833, Feb. 11, 200; 9Da3311, Nov. 27, 2001; 99Da33311, Nov. 27, 2001). In a case where an insurance contract was concluded for the purpose of denying the payment of insurance money through multiple insurance contracts, payment of insurance money under the concluded insurance contract will go beyond social reasonableness by encouraging unjust profits by abusing the insurance contract, but also, it would impair the rational distribution of risks and undermine the good morals of the insurance system, and thus, it would be null and void under Article 2085 of the Civil Act.

On the other hand, even if there is no evidence to directly acknowledge whether a policyholder has concluded multiple insurance contracts for the purpose of illegally acquiring the insurance proceeds, such purpose may be ratified based on the following circumstances, such as the occupation and financial status of the policyholder, the background leading up to the conclusion of multiple insurance contracts, the scale of the insurance contracts, and the circumstances after the conclusion of the insurance contracts (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da23858, Jul. 28, 2005).

In light of the above legal principles, the court below held that the insurance contract of this case excluding the automobile comprehensive insurance contract which was renewed every year among the insurance contracts of this case was concluded by the policyholder 1 or 1 under the initiative of the plaintiff 1 as the policyholder. The plaintiff 1 concluded multiple insurance contracts for the purpose of acquiring insurance proceeds even around October 2002, and it was lost with the wind of the non-party 2 who was murderer 1, but the non-party 1 refused to do so. The plaintiff 1 or non-party 1 paid and restored large amount of overdue insurance premiums of this case around June 2003 to the non-party 1 or non-party 1 purchased large amount of insurance premiums of this case and it is hard to see that there is no reasonable ground to believe that the contract of this case was concluded for the purpose of changing the insurance contract of this case to the non-party 1 or the non-party 1's life insurance contract of this case for the purpose of changing the insurance contract of this case, and it cannot be viewed that the contract of this case was invalid each of this case.

3. Whether the plaintiff 1's ground for disqualification for inheritance falls under the ground for disqualification and whether the court below erred in exercising the right to explanation

The court below held that, in the case of an automobile comprehensive insurance contract which has been renewed every year, it cannot be deemed as a violation of Article 103 of the Civil Code in light of all the circumstances, and that the beneficiary of the non-party 1's death notification as the insured is a legal inheritor, the defendant Dongbu fire is liable to pay the insurance money to the non-party 1's legal inheritor. However, on October 2002, the court below held that the non-party 1 was not liable to pay the insurance money to the non-party 1 on the ground that the non-party 1 instigated the non-party 2 to kill the non-party 1 for the purpose of acquiring the insurance money, but the non-party 2 attempted to kill the non-party 1, and that the judgment became final and conclusive on the ground that the non-party 1 was "the person who attempted to kill the deceased by intention" as stipulated in subparagraph 1 of Article 1004 of the Civil Code and therefore, the non-party 1 did not have any obligation to pay the insurance money to the plaintiff 1.

On the other hand, the court's exercise of the right of explanation is to point out the contradictions of the argument, incomplete or unclear parts, to give the parties an opportunity to correct or supplement them, and to urge them to submit evidence of the dispute.

According to the records, the court below submitted an application for modification of the purport of the claim on August 19, 2008, which the purport that Plaintiff 1’s portion of the insurance money belongs to the rest of the plaintiffs in preparation for the reason that Plaintiff 1’s inheritance is disqualified, but the above amendment of the purport of the claim was unlawful. Upon the submission of a preparatory document on August 25, 2008, which included the argument that the above amendment of the purport of the claim is unlawful, the court expressed a litigation relationship after making a statement only on other preparatory documents without stating the above amendment at the third date for pleading immediately thereafter. In such a circumstance, the court of the court of the court below concluded that Plaintiff 1 was disqualified for inheritance after the closure of pleadings, and that there was no error of law by failing to exercise the right of explanation.

4. Therefore, all appeals are 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 Park Ill-sook (Presiding Justice)