[1] In a case where the insured of fire insurance claims insurance amounting to five times the actual amount of damage by preparing and submitting a false sales contract, specification, etc. concerning part of the insurance subject to damage caused by fire, the case holding that the insured lost its right to claim insurance for part of the insurance subject matter in accordance with the exemption clause, on the ground that the insured actively created false damage and claims excessive insurance money in a fraudulent manner

[2] Where a lessee concluded a fire insurance contract with the building owned by a lessor and the machinery owned by the lessee located within the building as the insured, the case holding that, in light of the fact that both parties were aware of the fact that the building does not belong to the policyholder at the time of entering into the contract, it is reasonable to view that the building part of the above insurance contract is an insurance contract for another person who

[1] Where the insured of fire insurance claims insurance amounting to five times the actual amount of damage by preparing and submitting false sales contract, specifications, etc. concerning part of the insurance purpose damaged by fire, the case holding that the insured lost its right to claim insurance for part of the insurance purpose in accordance with the insurance policy that "if the policyholder or the insured intentionally enters matters different from the fact in the documents concerning notification of damage or claim for insurance proceeds, or forges or alters such documents or evidence, the insured loses its right to claim insurance for the damage."

[2] Where a lessee concluded a fire insurance contract with the building owned by a lessor and the machinery, etc. owned by the lessee located within the building as the insured, the case holding that it is reasonable to view that the building part of the above insurance contract is an insurance contract for a lessor who is the owner of the building, in light of the fact that both parties knew that the building does not belong to the owner of the building at the

[1] Articles 638-3, 657, 658, 659, and 683 of the Commercial Act; Article 105 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 665 and 683 of the Commercial Act; Article 539(1) of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Law Firm Duo, Attorneys Kim Jung-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Lee Young-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

August 21, 2009

1. With respect to fire accidents caused by the building of the Daegu-gu Factory on April 1, 2007 (hereinafter omitted), around 18:18, 2007:

A. It is confirmed that there is no insurance payment obligation of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against Defendant 2 based on the insurance contract indicated in the attached Table between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and Defendant 2.

B. It is confirmed that the obligation of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) to pay insurance proceeds to Defendant 1 (Counterclaim Defendant) based on the insurance contract indicated in the separate sheet between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and Defendant 1 (Counterclaim Plaintiff) does not exceed the amount listed in paragraph (2) below.

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) shall pay to the defendant 1 (Counterclaim plaintiff) 20 million won with 6% per annum from June 8, 2007 to September 18, 2009, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. All of the claims by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against Defendant 1 (Counterclaim Defendant) and the remainder of the counterclaim by Defendant 1 (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and Defendant 2 is assessed against Defendant 2, and 1/10 of the part arising between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and Defendant 1 (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are assessed against the remainder by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

5. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

In this lawsuit, it is confirmed that there is no liability for the payment of insurance proceeds under an insurance contract described in the separate sheet against the Plaintiff as to a fire accident that occurred on April 1, 2007 between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant, hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and Defendant 1 (Counterclaim Plaintiff, hereinafter “Defendant 1”) and Defendant 2.

Counterclaim: The plaintiff shall pay 550,000,000 won to defendant 1 and 6% per annum from April 1, 2007 to the service date of a copy of the counterclaim of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be recognized by taking into account the whole purport of Gap evidence of 1 through 7, Eul evidence of 6 (the evidence of 2, 6, 7, and 6 of 2) and the whole arguments:

A. The Defendants entered into an insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with the Plaintiff Company on December 29, 2006, with the trade name “○○ Textiles” under Defendant 1’s business registration from around 1997, and Defendant 2 entered into an insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

B. On April 18, 2007, around 18:18: (a) a cause unexpected fire that occurred within Defendant 2’s Daegu achievement Group (hereinafter omitted)’s ○○ Textiles Factory (hereinafter “instant factory”) and caused the fire that caused the building and the interior of the factory to be removed (hereinafter “instant fire”).

C. Meanwhile, around May 15, 2005, the Defendants leased the instant factory building owned by Nonparty 1 from May 15, 2005 to May 15, 2007, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 7 million and KRW 1 million per month.

D. On May 18, 2007, Defendant 1 filed with the Plaintiff Company a claim for the payment of insurance proceeds of KRW 430,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won of the installed machine, as damages caused by the instant fire accidents based on the instant insurance contract, including the amount equivalent to KRW 260,000,000,000,000 in inventory assets.

E. The main contents of the insurance terms relating to the instant case are as follows:

Article 6 (Compensation for Loss)

(1) A company shall compensate for the following losses suffered by fire on any article insured in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement:

1. Direct damage caused by a fire;

2. Fire-fighting damage caused by a fire.

3. Evacuation damage caused by a fire;

Article 7 (Compensation for Non-Compensation)

The Company shall not compensate for the following losses:

1. Damage caused by intention or gross negligence of the contractor, the insured, or his legal representative;

2. A loss caused intentionally by relatives or employees living in the same household as the insured in order to have the insured receive insurance proceeds;

Article 12 (Contract for Third Party)

(2) Where an insured event occurs in a contract for another person, if the contractor compensates the other person for the loss incurred by the occurrence of the insured events, the contractor may claim for the payment of the insurance proceeds to the company to the extent that it does not prejudice the rights of

Article 19 (Payment of Insurance Money)

(1) Upon receipt of the following documents, the company shall issue a certificate of receipt, and shall pay insurance proceeds within 20 days from the date of receipt of the documents:

1. A written claim for insurance proceeds;

2. Insurance policies.

3. Other evidential materials requested by the company.

(4) Where a company fails to pay insurance money within the due date stipulated under the provisions of paragraph (1), it shall pay the amount calculated by adding up the amount calculated by the interest rate on time deposits publicly announced by the Korea Insurance Development Institute for the period from the following day to the due date of payment: Provided, That if the payment is delayed due to a contractor or an

Article 21 (Loss of Claim for Insurance Money)

The insured loses the right to claim insurance for damages in any of the following cases:

1. Where the contractor or the insured intentionally enters any document concerning the notice of damage or the claim for insurance proceeds into the false document, or forges or alters the document or evidence;

2. The party's assertion in the principal lawsuit and counterclaim

With respect to the plaintiff company's claim that the plaintiff company did not have any insurance obligation against the defendants of the plaintiff company by asserting as the principal suit as follows 4.4., the defendant 1, as a counterclaim, claimed that the plaintiff company suffered damages equivalent to KRW 280,000,000 of the installed machine due to the fire of this case, KRW 20,000,000 of the installed machine part, KRW 150,000,000 of the inventory assets, KRW 150,000 of the inventory assets, and KRW 550,000,000 of the building part, KRW 100,000,000 under the insurance contract of this case, and therefore, it also examined the principal suit and counterclaim.

3. Whether the defendant 2 is liable to pay insurance money

While Defendant 2 was running a water manufacturing business with the trade name “○ Textiles” under Defendant 1’s business registration, the fact that the instant insurance contract was concluded in the name of Defendant 1 around December 29, 2006 is acknowledged as above. However, it is insufficient for Defendant 2 to regard it as the insured of the instant insurance contract, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. On the other hand, according to the overall purport of the evidence and arguments mentioned above, the insured of the instant insurance contract is recognized as Defendant 1, and therefore, there is no obligation of the Plaintiff to pay insurance money to Defendant 2.

4. Whether the defendant 1 is liable to pay insurance money

(a) Occurrence of liability to pay insurance proceeds;

According to the above facts, since each of the insurance items of the instant insurance contracts was destroyed or damaged by fire of this case, Defendant 1 suffered losses, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff Company is obligated to pay the insurance money calculated in accordance with the terms and conditions of the instant insurance contract to Defendant 1, the insured.

B. Determination of the Plaintiff Company’s assertion

1) Claim for exemption from liability due to intentional fire prevention

The plaintiff company asserts that the plaintiff company is exempted from the duty to pay insurance money in accordance with the Commercial Act and the insurance contract of this case, since the defendants intentionally committed fire to the factory of this case for the purpose of claiming insurance money under the insurance contract of this case.

In light of the records in Gap evidence No. 4, Article 7 subparagraph 1 of the insurance contract of this case, "the damage caused by the intentional or gross negligence of the contractor, the insured, or his legal representative, and the damage caused intentionally by his relative or his employee who is in the same household with the insured in order to get the insured insurance proceeds to the insured" can be acknowledged that the plaintiff company did not compensate for the damage. However, the policyholder, etc., who is the above exemption from liability as above should bear the burden of proof. The plaintiff's intentional or gross negligence should bear the burden of proof. The plaintiff's assertion that the fire occurred in the factory of this case around April 18:18, 207. The plaintiff's assertion that the fire occurred in the factory of this case around 18:18, 207. The plaintiff's assertion that there was no intention or gross negligence on the part of the 8 straight light light set up in the above factory, and the 9 upper class type electric wires set forth in the above 8th class, and the plaintiff company's allegation that the fire of this case could not be found otherwise.

(2) Claim for excess insurance due to fraud

The Plaintiff Company concluded the instant insurance contract by actively deceiving the Plaintiff by determining the purchase price of the installed machinery, public equipment, inventory assets, etc., which the Defendant merely purchased approximately KRW 100 million, as KRW 450 million, etc.

3) Claim for loss of insurance claim upon false claims

A) The plaintiff company's assertion

While Defendant 1’s claim for insurance proceeds against the Plaintiff Company, the actual amount of damages of KRW 98,670,000,000, including KRW 14,000,000 among the subject-matter of insurance (hereinafter “this case’s installation machinery”) is not equivalent to KRW 15,386,150, the actual amount of damages of the inventory assets, such as a false confirmation of purchase/sale, a written confirmation of supply after the purchase/sale, a sales contract, a written estimate of supply after the purchase/sale, a sales contract, a written estimate, a movable inventory and a statement of movable property damage, a statement of cost calculation, etc., are written intentionally different from the fact in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance contract of this case. As such, Defendant 1’s claim for insurance proceeds was written differently as if the amount of damages was 482,000,000,0000

B) Facts of recognition and determination

1) Facts of recognition

The following facts may be recognized by taking into account the respective descriptions of Gap evidence 4, 7, and 10 (including each number for evidence A7 to 10) and the whole purport of oral arguments:

A) Article 21 subparag. 1 of the insurance clause of the instant insurance contract provides that the contractor or the insured intentionally states any false fact in the documents concerning the notice of damage or the claim for insurance money, or loses the right to claim the damage in the event that the documents or evidence were forged or altered (hereinafter “instant insurance clause”).

B) On May 18, 2007, Defendant 2 filed a claim against the Plaintiff Company for the payment of insurance proceeds of KRW 482 million in total with respect to the installed machinery, machinery, apparatus, and inventory assets except for the instant factory building in relation to the instant fire. Defendant 2, on behalf of the Plaintiff Company, claimed that damages of KRW 60 million in total ( KRW 260 million in the installed machinery + KRW 62 million in the official structure + KRW 160 million in the inventory assets + KRW 160 million in the purchase price of each subject matter of insurance + KRW 430 million in total within the purchase price limit of each subject matter, + KRW 260 million in the official structure + KRW 150 million in the inventory assets + KRW 150,000 in the specifications of purchase/sale, written confirmation of purchase/sale of the movable property, written estimate of purchase/sale, and cost specifications, specifications of each subject matter of insurance, etc.

(1) 12 straight machines ( installed machines)

In the name of “○○ Engineering”, Nonparty 2, who is engaged in the sales and repair of fiber machinery, did not purchase 12 pieces of “○○○” from Nonparty 2. Moreover, even though the total market price of the said machinery at the time of the instant fire was at KRW 48 million, Nonparty 2 asserted that he/she suffered damages equivalent to the same amount by preparing and submitting a false confirmation of purchase/sale (Evidence A7-4), and a false confirmation of supply of middle and high-end repairs (Evidence A7-7) to the effect that he/she purchased the said machinery in total at KRW 126 million from Nonparty 2.

(2) Two straight-lines for △△ ( installed machinery)

Although the total market value of the above machinery was 3 million won at the time of the instant fire, it was argued that the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to the same amount while preparing and submitting a false statement of machinery and apparatus (Evidence A7-50) to the effect that the total market value of the said machinery was 18 million won.

(3) △ 1200 - 3 1200 - 1200 - 5 1200 -

In the trade name of “Seong machine manufacturer,” Nonparty 3 did not purchase the above machinery from Nonparty 3 who is engaged in the sales and repair of the machinery, and the sum of the market price of the said machinery at the time of the instant fire is at least KRW 6.5 million, Nonparty 3 asserted that he suffered damages equivalent to the same amount while preparing and submitting a false sales contract (Evidence 7-5), a confirmation of purchase/sale (Evidence 7-5), and a false sales contract (Evidence 7-56) to the effect that he purchased the said machinery from the above Nonparty 3 for a total of KRW 70 million.

(4) △△ District 1200 4 Doz. (Establishment Machinery)

In the trade name of ○○○○, Nonparty 4, who was engaged in the business of manufacturing textile machinery parts, did not purchase the said machinery from Nonparty 4, who was engaged in the business of manufacturing textile machinery parts. Moreover, even though the total market price of the said machinery at the time of the instant fire was at least KRW 4,00,000,000, Nonparty 4 argued that he suffered damages equivalent to the same amount while preparing and submitting a false confirmation of purchase/sale (Evidence 5,000,000,000 won).

(5) 00 2 Doz. 1200 Doz. (Installation Machinery)

Although the total market price of the above machinery at the time of the instant fire is 2 million won, it was argued that the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to the same amount while preparing and submitting a false statement of machinery and apparatus (Evidence A7-50) to the effect that the total market price of the above machinery was 15.2 million won.

(6) One check-term, two air compresseders, 14 straws (installers)

In the trade name of “○○ Industry”, Nonparty 5, who is engaged in the manufacturing of machinery, did not purchase the said machinery from Nonparty 5. Moreover, even though the total market price of the said machinery at the time of the instant fire is 2.4 million won, Nonparty 5 asserted that he suffered damages equivalent to the same amount while preparing and submitting a false confirmation of purchase/sale (Evidence 7-23), and a detailed statement of machinery and apparatus (Evidence 7-50) to the effect that he purchased the said machinery from Nonparty 5 in total at KRW 13.2 million.

(7) 1 mutual aids, 52 mutual aids (installers)

Although the total market price of the above machinery at the time of the instant fire is 80,000 won, it was argued that the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to the same amount while preparing and submitting a false confirmation of purchase/sale (Evidence 7-24), specifications of machinery and apparatus (Evidence 7-50), and quotation (Evidence 7-61) to the effect that the total market price of the above machinery was 32,100,000 won.

(8) Raw Cormadows (7S), Cormadows (10S), Hymadows (10S), Hymadows, Hymadows (freshs) Hymadows (10S) Myeon 10S laps, and DTY150/300 laps (Inventorys)

At the time of the instant fire, even though there was no nuclear force other than KRW 700,00,00, the factory of this case, at the time of the instant fire, there was no nuclear force, a statement of the existence of the movable property and the amount of the false inventory of the movable property to the effect that: (a) KRW 10,751,00,00,00,000,000, in the face-to-face 10,751,000,000, in the face-to-face 1,523,250,000, KRW 2,300,000,000,000, KRW 10,000,000, KRW 204,000, KRW 204,300,000, KRW 23,020,750,000, in the face-to-face 209,400,000.

(9) Inventory value, etc. owned by Nonparty 6 (Inventory)

Although the total market price of Non-Party 6’s post-sale site, etc., which existed in the instant factory at the time of the instant fire, was at a level equivalent to KRW 4,709,300, the following purport was that there was a sum of KRW 38,179,080 in the market price, and that there was damage equivalent to the same amount in preparing and submitting the false statement of movable property damage (Evidence 7-1, 131, 7-2, 132, 132, 7-2, 133, 7-2, 133, 7-2, 133, 7-2, and 133.

(10) Kababa, etc., owned by Nonparty 7 (Inventory)

Although the total market price of the carba, etc. owned by Nonparty 7, who had existed in the instant factory at the time of the instant fire, was 5,857,450 won, it was argued that the Defendant suffered damages equivalent to the same amount while preparing and submitting the false movables damage statement (Evidence 114), manufacturing cost statement (Evidence 7-7), 115, 116, 116, 116, which was the 22,80,880 won in total at the market price.

(11) The character, etc. owned by Nonparty 8 (Inventory)

Although the market value of the character, etc. owned by Nonparty 8, which existed at the time of the instant fire, was 2,479,400 won at the time of the instant fire, it was argued that there was a character equivalent to a total of 70,196,034 won in the market value, etc. of the false movable property damage (the evidence No. 7-105), the manufacturer’s account statement (the evidence No. 7-106), the producer’s account statement (the evidence No. 7-106), and the producer’s account statement (the evidence No. 7-107) were prepared and submitted to the effect that there was damages equivalent to the same amount.

C) In this case, this Court sentenced Defendant 2 to six months on August 28, 2009, on the ground that this Court notified Defendant 2 of the aforementioned false facts and attempted to obtain insurance money by submitting a false statement, etc.

2) Determination

A) The purport of the terms and conditions of the fire insurance clauses of this case is to stipulate the causes of the insurance accident, situation, degree of damages, etc. to determine liability for compensation under the insurance contract, to determine compensation amount, etc. However, it is highly necessary to require the insured to provide accurate information on them to policyholders or the insured (hereinafter “insured”). Accordingly, in cases where the insured claims excessive insurance money in a fraudulent manner contrary to the principle of trust and good faith, such as forging documents or manipulating evidence against such request, the insured should lose its right to claim insurance money (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da2027, 20234, Nov. 23, 2006). However, it is reasonable to interpret that the insurer is exempt from liability only if it violates the terms and conditions by strictly interpreting the terms and conditions of the insurance contract of this case, in light of the social utility and economic function of the victim’s insurance, as well as the economic significance of the insurance claim of this case, and thus, it is reasonable to reasonably interpret the contents of the insurance claim of this case to the extent that it loses its function.

B) In the instant case, the following circumstances revealed by the aforementioned legal principles and facts, i.e., ① Defendant 1’s actual amount of damages on the installation machinery excluding the building and public organizations due to the fire of this case 81,426,150 won [3,000 won + 6,500,000 won + + 4,000,000 won + 2,400,000 + 00,000 + 80,00,000 won + 00,000,000 won + 0,000,000 won + 0,000,00 won + 14,726,150 (1,68,000,000,000 won + 20,000,000 won +60,00 won +60,00 won +60,00 won of the total amount of damages on the inventory equipment excluding the actual purchase price).

C) Therefore, Defendant 1, the insured of the instant insurance contract, intentionally stated that it was different from the facts in the documents concerning the claim for insurance money. Thus, as stipulated in the terms and conditions of the instant insurance contract, Defendant 1 lost its right to claim insurance regarding the installation machinery and inventory assets of this case, and on the other hand, the fact that the portion of the instant public organization with respect to the amount of damages caused by the instant fire is not clearly disputed by the Plaintiff Company. Thus, the Plaintiff Company is obliged to pay Defendant 1 the amount of damages of the said public organization and damages for delay.

5. As to the claim for payment of KRW 100 million as to the portion of the factory building of this case

A. The nature of the instant insurance contract

Defendant 1 is the insured of the instant insurance contract. Under the instant insurance terms and conditions, the insurance company provides that the insured shall compensate for direct damage caused by fire, fire-fighting damage, escape damage, etc. The Defendants leased the instant factory building from Nonparty 1, the owner of the instant plant, as acknowledged earlier. According to the above facts, it is clear that the instant insurance contract has the nature of the non-life insurance as a kind of fire insurance. Unless otherwise stipulated, such fire insurance cannot be deemed as having the nature of the liability insurance that the insured shall compensate for the damage caused by the insured’s liability to compensate for damage to another person, the owner of the relevant object. In this case, whether the insurance contract is for himself/herself, the content of the insurance contract and the terms and conditions that the parties consider as the content of the insurance contract, the process and process of concluding the insurance contract, the practice of the insurance company, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da14800, May 30, 1997, etc.).

In light of the fact that the building of this case was known to both parties that it does not belong to the owner of the policyholder at the time of conclusion of the insurance contract of this case, and the contents of the above terms and conditions, it is reasonable to view the part concerning the building of this case as the policyholder of this case and the lessee of this case as the insurance contract of this case

B. Determination

On the other hand, if an insured event occurred in a contract for another person under Article 12 (2) of the insurance clause of this case, the fact that the policyholder can claim insurance money to the company to the extent that it does not harm the other person's rights is acknowledged as above when the policyholder compensates the other person for the loss caused by the insured event. Thus, there is no assertion or proof as to the fact that the defendant 1, the policyholder, was compensated for the loss caused by the fire of this case to the non-party 1, the owner of the building of this case. Thus, the claim for insurance money payment against the plaintiff company of this case against the defendant 1 is not acknowledged (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da4330 delivered on January 12, 207).

According to Article 724(1) of the Commercial Act, in the case of liability insurance, the insurer is unable to pay all or part of the insured amount to the insured before the third party receives the compensation for the damages caused by an accident attributable to the insured (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da28093, Sept. 26, 1995) by deeming the part concerning the building of this case as liability insurance for Defendant 1, the insured, the insured, as the part concerning the building of this case, is deemed as liability insurance for the owner of the building of this case, and even if Defendant 1, the insured, as the insured, was liable for damages caused by a fire, the insurer cannot pay the whole or part of the insured amount to the insured (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da28093, Sept. 26, 1995). Thus, since there was no assertion or proof that Defendant 1 paid damages to the owner of this case due to the fire of this case or that there was an obligation to pay insurance money against the third party owner by the method set forth in the Commercial Act or the insurance clause.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, there is no obligation to pay insurance money under the insurance contract of this case against defendant 2 of the plaintiff company. The plaintiff company is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Commercial Act from May 18, 2007 to September 18, 2009, which is the date when the plaintiff company rendered a reasonable judgment, as to the existence and scope of the obligation to pay insurance money from May 18, 2007 to the date when the claim for insurance money was received, and from June 8, 2007, from May 18, 2007 to the date when the claim for insurance money was received, the plaintiff company is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment (the defendant 1 claimed damages for delay from April 1, 207, which is the date when the claim for insurance money was received). However, there is no obligation to pay insurance money exceeding the above insurance money under the insurance contract of this case against the plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff company's claim against the defendant 2 is justified, and the plaintiff company's main claim against the defendant 1 and the counterclaim by the defendant 1 are accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] List: omitted

Judges Lee Ho-ho (Presiding Judge)