The validity of the exemption clause for drinking driving in a motor vehicle insurance contract for self-physical accident insurance (negative)

In light of the fact that Articles 732-2 and 739 of the Commercial Act restrict the insurer's exemption from liability with respect to life insurance whose death or injury is an insured accident, which provides that the insurer shall pay the insurance proceeds even if the insured event occurred due to gross negligence, or that the life insurance is a fixed amount insurance unlike liability insurance, there is no reason to interpret the clause of non-driving or exemption from drinking driving in life insurance, and in the case of drinking driving, there is a high possibility of the occurrence of the insurance accident, but the individual vehicle on the possibility of the occurrence of the accident is not likely to undermine the homogeneity of risk between the members in life insurance. In addition, although the driving of drinking is intentionally committed, it is not directly related to the drinking driving itself, and it is not related to the death or injury, and thus it does not violate the good faith and ethics of the parties in the insurance contract. Thus, if the degree of the accident is evaluated as invalid as a whole including the insurance accident due to the act of drinking insurance such as self-accident insurance (self-accident accident insurance) as well as the purpose of calculating the damage caused by negligence as a whole.

Articles 659(1), 663, 732-2 and 739 of the Commercial Act

Supreme Court Decision 89Meu17591 Decided May 25, 1990 (Gong1990, 1364) Supreme Court Decision 96Da4909 Decided April 26, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1719), Supreme Court Decision 97Da27039 Decided March 27, 1998 (Gong198Sang, 1173), Supreme Court Decision 97Da48753 Decided March 27, 1998 (Gong198Sang, 1185), Supreme Court Decision 97Da24559 Decided April 28, 1998 (hereinafter the same purport)

Plaintiff 1 and six others (Attorney Kim Jae-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Dongyang Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Han-dong Law Office, Attorneys Yu-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 97Na18157 delivered on December 10, 1997

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The judgment of the court below

Based on the evidence established by the court below, the non-party 2 entered into an insurance contract for self-driving of the deceased with the non-party 6's insurer on Aug. 19, 195, which provides that the non-party 3's legal heir of the deceased, Seoul 2BB5104 (the registration number is changed to Seoul 40A708) and the insurance period is from Aug. 19, 195 to Aug. 24:00, which provides that the non-party 2's liability for the above change of the insurance accident under the provision of the Commercial Act is not applicable to the non-party 6's accident of the non-party 2, who caused the accident of the non-party 6's accident to the non-party 3's life or the non-party 2's accident of the non-party 2, who caused the death of the non-party 3's life or the non-party 2's accident of drinking without permission or drinking, and thus, it is not applicable to the non-party 196.

2. Judgment of party members

Article 659(1) of the Commercial Act provides that "if an insurance accident has occurred due to intention or gross negligence of the policyholder, the insured or the beneficiary, an insurer shall not be liable to pay the insured amount." However, Article 732-2 of the Life Insurance Act applies mutatis mutandis again to an accident insurance contract under Article 739, which limits the insurer's exemption from liability and limits the insurer's payment of insurance amount for life insurance and personal insurance such as accident insurance. However, in light of the fact that personal insurance is a fixed-liability insurance unlike liability insurance, the interpretation of the non-driving or drunk driving exemption clause is without any reason to be identical to that of liability insurance. In addition, in the case of a drunk driving, the possibility of the occurrence of the insurance accident may be high, but the possibility of the occurrence of the accident does not violate the homogeneity between the members in the life insurance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da9799, supra., Supreme Court Decision 209Da9797999, supra, on the ground that it does not directly affect the insured's life or personal injury.

As determined by the court below, although the accident of this case occurred while the non-party was under the influence of alcohol, it cannot be deemed that the non-party deceased was negligent in the occurrence of the accident, and that there was an intentional or intentional act, so long as the defendant cannot refuse payment of insurance money under the insurance contract on the ground of the above condition of exemption of alcohol driving, as long as the accident of this case occurred only due to negligence, and it is not possible for the defendant to refuse payment of insurance money under the insurance contract, on the ground of the above condition of exemption of alcohol driving, as to the insurance accident of this case, which is only caused by negligence. Accordingly, the judgment below, which held that the above condition of exemption of alcohol driving is valid, contrary to the precedents of the party members cited above, has committed an unlawful act of misunderstanding the legal principles on the validity

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)