2017Da215728 Insurance Money, etc.

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Attorney Yang Sung-hoon et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

B&B Co., Ltd.

Attorney Jeong-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant

Samsung Fire Insurance Co., Ltd.

Law Firm LLC (Attorneys Jeon Sung-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 2016454926 Decided January 19, 2017

February 6, 2020

The part of the judgment below against Defendant Samsung Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

The costs of appeal between the Plaintiffs and Defendant B&B Co., Ltd are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiffs, the lower court rejected the Plaintiffs’ assertion that Defendant B&B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “BWnB”) had received insurance money by deceiving the Plaintiffs. Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is acceptable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on deception, by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by violating the rules of evidence, etc.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Samsung Fire”). Article 735-3(3) of the former Commercial Act (amended by Act No. 14969, Oct. 31, 2017; hereinafter the same) provides that “When a policyholder designates an insured person or a person who is not his/her heir as an insurance beneficiary under a group insurance contract, he/she shall obtain written consent from the insured except as otherwise expressly provided in the organization’s bylaws. In order to recognize that the organization’s rules explicitly stipulate the insured or a person who is not his/her heir as an insurance beneficiary, his/her intent should be confirmed to the extent that it can be treated as the same as the case where the insured’s written consent is obtained.

Therefore, even though the organization's rules expressly stipulate that a person who is not the insured or his heir is a beneficiary of a group insurance contract without the consent of the insured in writing, if the group insurance contract does not designate the insured or his heir as a beneficiary of a beneficiary, the designation of the beneficiary does not take effect against Article 735-3 (3) of the former Commercial Act, and the insured or his heir would be a beneficiary of a beneficiary if an insurance accident occurred after the legitimate designation of a beneficiary of a beneficiary, and the court below determined as follows. (A) Defendant Bnbnb designated itself as a beneficiary of the instant group insurance contract based on the collective agreement and did not obtain written consent from the insured. The collective agreement merely states that Defendant Bnbnb or the beneficiary may be designated as a beneficiary of a beneficiary of the instant case. This does not constitute "the case explicitly stipulated in the organization's rules under Article 735-3 (3) of the former

B) As long as the instant group insurance contract was lawfully concluded, the instant group insurance contract does not become null and void on the ground that there are the aforementioned circumstances, and only the part on which Defendant Non-A&W cost was designated as a beneficiary is null and void against Article 735-3(3) of the former Commercial Act.

C) In the group insurance contract, the designation of the beneficiary is null and void, and otherwise, the insured’s heir becomes the beneficiary of the group insurance in this case, as the insured’s death occurred in a situation where the beneficiary was not legally designated.

3) Examining the aforementioned legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the designation of a beneficiary in group insurance, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the validity of group insurance in case the designation of a beneficiary is null

B. The ground of appeal No. 3 No. 1) In a life insurance contract or accident insurance contract in which an insurance policyholder has made the insured’s inheritor as the beneficiary of the insurance, the insured’s inheritor may claim insurance payment against the insurer as the beneficiary of the insurance when the insured’s death occurred. This right naturally takes effect by the validity of the insurance contract, and it is not inherited property but the inheritor’s inherent property (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da29463, Jul. 9, 2004, etc.). In this case, even if one of the inheritors designated as the beneficiary of the insurance renounces the right to claim insurance belonging to himself/herself, the waived part does not naturally belong to another inheritor. This legal principle applies to cases where the inheritor is recognized as the beneficiary of the group insurance of this case. In light of such legal principles, even if the non-party, one of the inheritors recognized as the beneficiary of the group insurance of this case, waives his/her right to the insurance of this case, the

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the Plaintiffs, the co-inheritors of the deceased, and the Nonparty were beneficiaries of the organization insurance of this case, and that the Nonparty renounced the right to the insurance money of this case, and thus, the Plaintiffs became beneficiaries of the entire insurance money of this case. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on designation of the beneficiary of this case and the reversion of the insurance money, which affected the conclusion of the remaining judgment. The allegation contained in the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit. Meanwhile, all inheritance rights (shares) arising in relation

The plaintiffs claim that the non-party's right to the insurance money of this case belongs to their owner based on the above statement of name. In light of all circumstances, it is difficult to conclude that the non-party simply renounced his right to claim insurance money. Therefore, the court below shall point out that the effect needs to be determined by exercising the right to ask for explanation on the reason why the statement of name was submitted, what the non-party's genuine intent is, etc. after remand.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against Defendant Samsung Fire is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The Plaintiffs’ appeals are all dismissed, and the costs of appeal incurred between the Plaintiffs and Defendant B&C are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-soo

Justices Kwon Soon-il

Chief Justice Lee Ki-taik

Justices Park Jung-hwa