[1] The case holding that even if an employee's tort committed by the insured for the purpose of repaying illegally withdrawn funds from the insured prior to the commencement of the insurance period, it constitutes an "inint" under the above requirements, by interpreting the security requirement such as "an intention to inflict damage on the insured or obtain his/her own property gains" as stipulated in the terms and conditions of the comprehensive insurance contract of a financial institution" to the effect that "an intention to inflict damage on the insured or to realize his/her own property gains" is "an intention to do so"

[2] The method of calculating the insured's losses caused by the occurrence of insurance accidents

[3] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that since an insured accident, which is an illegal act of an employee, caused loss to the insured's insured interest, it cannot be deemed that the employee's repayment of illegally withdrawn funds from the insured before the above insurance period cannot be deemed as a repayment of loss caused by the above insurance accident

[1] The case holding that since there is a dispute over the interpretation of the terms stated in the terms and conditions of the Financial Institution Comprehensive Insurance Contract in English, the meaning of the terms and conditions should first be determined in English language, and the prior meaning of the terms and conditions of the terms and conditions should be determined in accordance with English language, and it is reasonable to interpret that the term and conditions of the insured's act should be distinguished from the insured's "an intention to cause damage to the insured or to realize his/her property gain" as stipulated in Article 1 of the Guarantee Clause of the above terms and conditions providing compensation for "an intention to cause damage to the insured or to gain his/her own property gain" as stated in Article 1 of the Guarantee Clause of the above terms and conditions, and thus, it should be interpreted that the term and conditions of the terms and conditions of the insured's act should be interpreted as "an intention to pursue property gain to the insured or to realize his/her own property gain," even if it is an employee's motive or an employee's intent to commit such an act before the commencement of the insurance period."

[2] In case of non-life insurance, the insurer's obligation to pay insurance proceeds is established when the insured event occurs within the insurance period, and the insured's insurable interest occurs, and the damage here means that all or part of the insurable interest has been destroyed or decreased, and the damage can be calculated by the difference in the property before and after the occurrence of the ordinary insurance accident. As long as the damage to be compensated is finally and conclusive, it can be treated as a matter of partial repayment or appropriation of the amount of damage, and it is sufficient to confirm where the actual amount of the damage has been paid and appropriated until the time of the payment of the insurance proceeds.

[3] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that in case where an insurance contract was concluded to guarantee the insured's loss caused by an employee's illegal act committed by the insured with clear intent to inflict loss on the insured or his own financial gain, since the insured's loss was conclusive due to an employee's illegal act during the insurance period, the employer's repayment of the illegally withdrawn fund from the insured before the insurance period is the repayment of the loss that occurred before the insurance period, and cannot be deemed as the repayment of the loss caused by the above insurance accident.

[1] Article 105 of the Civil Code, Article 665 of the Commercial Code / [2] Articles 665 and 676 (1) of the Commercial Code / [3] Articles 665 and 676 (1) of the Commercial Code

Korea C&C (formerly: hereinafter “Korea”) (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Yellow-si et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm C & C, Attorneys Yang Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2002Na62656 delivered on June 19, 2003

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Judgment on the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the terms and conditions of the instant comprehensive insurance contract concluded by the Plaintiff and the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant insurance”) are in English (English) and Article 1 of the Security Clause which provides for the compensation object (e.g., the term and conditions of the instant comprehensive insurance contract (Lloyd’s “Lloyd”, Kloyd’s Poly, 1981 Form; hereinafter “instant terms and conditions”) of the instant financial institution includes the meaning of the terms and conditions of the instant comprehensive insurance contract (Lloyd’s “Lloyd’s Dozers’s Dozers’) and the employees of the insured directly or indirectly from the Llos’ Dozling and/or General Terms and Conditions of the instant comprehensive insurance contract (hereinafter “Llos’ Dozers’ Dokler’s Doz. 4) are provided for the reasons to see the causes to see, e.g., the insured’s act of fraud and damage to Dok or employee.

Therefore, if there is a dispute as to the interpretation of the terms and conditions of this case, the meaning of the terms and conditions of this case must be determined first by English language. The prior meaning of the terms and conditions of "int" as required in Article 1 of the aforementioned collateral provision refers to "the state of mind that causes an act is serious" and it is distinguishable from the motive that causes an act. Thus, considering such prior meaning, the above requirements prescribed in the terms and conditions of this case should be interpreted to the effect that "the insured would inflict damage on or obtain financial benefits on him/her," and it is separate from the motive or objective that "the act is realized." Thus, even though the non-party, who is an employee of this case, committed a tort during the insurance period of this case, committed a tort against the plaintiff before the commencement of the insurance period of this case, there is no interference with the requirements of "int" as stated in the ground of appeal.

The fact-finding and judgment of the court below that the act of illegally withdrawing KRW 4 billion on January 27, 2001 constituted the insurance accident of this case is justifiable as it is in accordance with the above legal principles. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no illegality that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Judgment on the second ground for appeal

Article 665 of the Commercial Act provides that "The insurer of a damage insurance contract shall be bound to indemnify for any property loss of the insured caused by an insured event," and Article 676 (1) of the Commercial Act provides that "The calculation of the amount of damage to be compensated by the insurer shall be calculated according to the value at the time and place of the loss."

In the case of non-life insurance, the insurer's obligation to pay insurance proceeds occurs within the insurance period and the occurrence of the insurance accident causes damage to the insured's insurable interest, and the damage here means that all or part of the insurable interest has been destroyed or decreased, and the damage can be calculated by the difference in the property before and after the occurrence of the ordinary insurance accident at the time of the occurrence of the insurance accident, and as long as the damage to be compensated is finally and conclusive, the situation that occurred thereafter can be treated as the issue of partial repayment or appropriation of the amount of damage, so it would be sufficient to confirm where and where the actual amount of the damage has been paid up to

In the case of this case, the insurance accident stipulated in Article 1 of the collateral clause of the insurance contract refers to "an act of an employee who causes damage to the insured or obtains financial benefits from him/her". Thus, the non-party's act of illegal withdrawal occurred three times during the insurance period of this case constitutes all the insurance accident. The damage therefrom is the difference in the property status of the insured before and after the insurance accident. Therefore, since the non-party's act of illegal withdrawal is the difference in the property status of the insured before and after the insurance accident of this case, it shall be deemed that each loss of the amount of KRW 1 billion on January 8, 2001, KRW 4 billion on January 27, 2001, and KRW 50 million on March 20, 201, and therefore the non-party's act of illegal withdrawal of KRW 4 billion on January 27, 2001, is not a problem of the occurrence of the insurance accident of this case, but merely a problem of partial repayment or appropriation of the damage.

If so, the non-party's illegal withdrawal on January 27, 2001 caused damages to the plaintiff, and the non-party's repayment to the account illegally withdrawn in the insurance period of KRW 3 billion is merely a repayment of the amount of damages already accrued prior to the insurance period, and it cannot be deemed a repayment of the amount of damages arising from the insurance accident of this case. The decision of the court below is just and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the occurrence of damages in the insurance of this case as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is 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.

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)