[1] Whether the delivery of a postal item can be presumed in a case where the postal item is sent by ordinary mail (negative)

[2] The case holding that where an insurance contract is terminated or invalidated after the ground for the agreed payment of part of the insurance money under the insurance contract occurred and a refund for termination is received only on the basis of a member's belief that the insurance contract is terminated or invalidated, the act cannot be deemed as an act of termination

[3] The validity of an insurance clause that an insurance contract is automatically invalidated after a lapse of a certain period of time upon delinquency in the payment of an insurance premium (negative)

[1] Unlike content-certified mail or registered mail, the fact that the mail was sent by ordinary mail cannot be presumed to have arrived within a considerable period of time, and the fact that the mail reached the delivery must be proved by evidence at the party asserting the validity of the service.

[2] The case holding that where an insurance contract is terminated or invalidated after the ground for the contract payment of certain insurance money under the insurance contract occurred and a refund for termination is received only on the basis of a member's belief of the insurance company that the contract is terminated or invalidated, the act cannot be deemed as an act of termination with

[3] The provisions of the insurance contract that the insurance contract becomes null and void as a matter of course after the lapse of a certain period on the grounds of delinquency in payment of premiums

[1] Article 187 (1) of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 105 and 543 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 650 (2) and 663 of the Commercial Act

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 76Nu263 delivered on February 22, 197 (Gong197, 9949) Supreme Court Decision 92Da2530 delivered on May 11, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 165), Supreme Court Decision 2001Da7059, 70566 Delivered on February 5, 2002 / [3] Supreme Court en banc Decision 94Da56852 Delivered on November 16, 195 (Gong195Ha, 3778), Supreme Court Decision 96Da37848 delivered on December 10, 196 (Gong197Sang, 328), Supreme Court Decision 9Da7039 delivered on July 25, 1997 (Gong1997Da379479 delivered on July 27, 209).

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Alternative Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Ho-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 99Na42041 delivered on April 19, 2000

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

1. Facts of premise;

As the premise facts, the court below acknowledged that the defendant and the deceased non-party 1 died to ○○ on July 20, 1998 when the defendant and the deceased died to ○○ on November 20, 1998 when the defendant and the deceased died to ○○ on the part of the deceased, and the plaintiffs died to ○○ on June 20, 1998 as the heir of the deceased.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Unlike content-certified mail or registered mail, the mere fact that the mail was sent by ordinary mail cannot be presumed to have arrived within a considerable period of time, and the fact of arrival must be proved by evidence that asserts the validity of the service (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 76Nu263 delivered on February 22, 197, Supreme Court Decision 92Da2530 delivered on May 11, 1993, etc.).

In light of the above legal principles, even if the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant sent the notice of termination of the contract to the deceased's address by ordinary mail and was not returned thereafter, it is just to accept the defendant's assertion that the above notice was lawfully delivered and the contract of this case was terminated, on the ground that it is difficult to see that the above notice was served to the deceased who is the policyholder within a reasonable period from the date of delivery, and there is no sufficient evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. In addition, there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the arrival of expression of intent or violation of precedents

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The court below accepted the judgment of the court of first instance, based on the facts as stated in its holding, judged that even if the deceased received the refund money for termination through his agent in the economic needs at the time when the grounds for the agreed payment of part of the insurance money under each of the insurance contracts of this case occurred in an imminent situation where the deceased would receive treatment due to the occurrence of the above cancer, the above fact-finding and determination of the court below are just and acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds for appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the probative value of the disposal document, by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the rules of evidence such as logical rules and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the facts contrary to the rules of evidence.

4. As to the third ground for appeal

Upon citing the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below acknowledged the defendant's assertion that each of the insurance contracts of this case was invalidated due to the delinquency of insurance premium, and thus, the restoration of insurance contract is a new insurance contract. The deceased violated the duty of disclosure because he did not notify the defendant of the fact that he received diagnosis of the above salt on March 24, 1997, which was the date of the final restoration contract and received treatment, and thus violated the duty of disclosure. The defendant's assertion that the contract of this case was discharged because the deceased did not pay the insurance premium of this case, and the insurance contract of this case was invalidated on April 15, 1997. However, the court below determined that all of the provisions of each of the insurance contracts of this case, which provided that the insurance contract of this case becomes null and void as a matter of course due to the delayed payment of insurance premium, were invalid, and that the defendant did not prove that the insurance contract of this case was terminated as a matter of course due to the reason that the insurance contract of this case was terminated.

In light of the relevant evidence in light of the records, the above judgment of the court below, including the judgment that invalidated the insurance clause that becomes void after the lapse of a certain period of time after the delayed payment of the premium, is justified, and its explanation is somewhat insufficient. However, the purport of the judgment of the court below is that each of the insurance contracts of this case is not invalidated, and that the defendant's assertion that the deceased violated the duty of disclosure in the restoration of each of the insurance contracts of this case is without merit without further review, and therefore, it is clear that the judgment of the court below did not err in the misapprehension of judgment or lack of reason, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

5. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Ji-dam (Presiding Justice)