[1] The meaning of "a sudden and remote accident," which is the element of an insurance accident under a mutual aid agreement, / The burden of proving the causal relationship between the occurrence of an accident and the result of death (=the claimant of insurance) and the degree of proof of such causal relationship

[2] In a case where Gap who returned home while under the influence of alcohol was found to have died at his studio 4 days after the date of death, the case affirming the judgment below which found that the death of Gap was caused by "a sudden and friendly accident" as stipulated in the mutual aid contract, and proximate causal relation between the accident and death was acknowledged

[1] Article 105 of the Civil Act, Articles 664 and 737 of the Commercial Act, Article 288 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 105 of the Civil Act, Articles 664 and 737 of the Commercial Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2006Da72734 Decided April 24, 2008, Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12241, 12258 Decided September 30, 2010 (Gong2010Ha, 1975)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Taedam, Attorneys Jeon Jin-jin et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

National Federation of Community Credit Cooperatives (Attorney On-the-job)

Jeonju District Court Decision 2013Na1597 decided July 19, 2013

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The term "emergency accident", which is the requirement of the insurance accident under the instant mutual aid agreement, refers to all accidents caused by external factors, not due to physical defects, such as illness or physical physical factors, etc. of the insured, and bears the burden of proof for the causal relationship between the external nature of the accident and the result of death. On the other hand, the causal relationship in civil disputes is not a medical and natural medical causal relationship, but a social and legal causal relationship, and such causal relationship does not necessarily have to be clearly proved in medical and natural science, and there is a substantial causal relationship between the accident and the result of death (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Da72734, Apr. 24, 2008; 2010Da1241, Sept. 30, 2010).

The lower court determined that: (a) there was no heart or brain cerebrovascular disease or any disease that may cause cardio-cerebrovascular color to the deceased at the time of the deceased’s death; (b) the opinion on the cause of the deceased’s death, i.e., “in-depth death by cardio-Japanese color,” by the front offender of the body autopsy, is nothing more than presumed judgment; and (c) while, at the time of the death of the deceased, the Nonparty of the professor at the law school of the Jeonbuk University’s medical branch of the Jeonbuk University, presented the possibility of the deceased’s death or injury solely based on the following factors: (a) the death of the deceased’s “emergency addiction by excessive drinking alcohol”; (b) Non-party of the professor at the law school of the Jeonbuk University’s school was unable to take part in the main condition of ancient Island; and (c) the death or injury of the deceased’s body could not be considered as a result of the death or injury of the deceased’s external body.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the court below is just in holding that there was a proximate causal relation between the accident and the result of the death by deeming that the death of the deceased was caused by sudden and unexpected accidents stipulated in the instant mutual aid agreement, not by physical defects of the deceased, such as illness or physical physical factors of the deceased, but by external accidents beyond the deceased’s body while under the influence of alcohol, and thereby caused the death due to damage to the deceased’s landscape. In so doing, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the requirements of insurance accidents, the burden of proof, and the causal relation between drinking and the death, etc.

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 Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)