[1] The meaning of "suicide" under an insurance contract covering death as an insured event, which is stipulated as the insurer's reason for exemption, and whether the act of direct cause causing death occurred under a situation in which the insured is unable to make a free decision constitutes death which is an insured accident (affirmative)

[2] Where it is objectively impossible to verify the occurrence of an insured incident, the starting point of the statute of limitations for the right to claim the amount of insurance proceeds (=when the claimant for the amount of insurance knew or could have known the occurrence

[3] In a case where the military investigation agency concluded that Gap who died during the military service was a simple suicide, but the Military Finding Committee decided that "A died in a state where he was unable to withstand physical or mental suffering due to alphical or cruel acts," the case holding that the judgment below which held that the extinctive prescription of the insurance claim which caused the death of Gap as an insured event is run from the time when the above decision was issued, and that the bereaved family members run from the time when Gap's death certificate was issued

[1] Articles 659(1) and 732-2 of the Commercial Act / [2] Article 662 of the Commercial Act, Article 166(1) of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 659(1), 662, and 732-2 of the Commercial Act, Article 166(1) of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2015Da5378 Decided June 23, 2015 (Gong2015Ha, 1033) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Da39822 Decided July 13, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2240)

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Jeong-hee, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Young Life Insurance Co., Ltd. and one other (Attorney Seo-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 2014Na3108 decided April 30, 2015

The part of the judgment below against the Defendants is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that the occurrence of the instant insurance accident was objectively obvious and that it would be reasonable to evaluate it as around December 26, 2012, which was the time of confirming the deceased’s death on duty, and thus, rejected the Defendants’ assertion that the Plaintiffs’ insurance claim of this case ought to be extinguished by the statute of limitations from that time.

2. Where a suicide in an insurance contract covering the death as an insured event provides for the reason for the exemption of the insurer’s exemption, suicide refers to an act of intentionally cutting one’s own life intentionally for the purpose of the insurance contract and causing death, and it does not include cases where the insured intentionally caused death in a situation where it is impossible for the insured to make free decision due to mental illness, etc. Therefore, if the direct cause of death occurred in a situation where it is impossible for the insured to make free decision, then the death may constitute an insured accident, which is not intentional, and may constitute an insured accident (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da5378, Jun. 23, 2015). Meanwhile, even if it is objectively unclear whether the insured event occurred or not, and it is difficult for the claimant to interpret that the extinctive prescription run from the time of the occurrence of the insured accident without negligence, it is reasonable to interpret that the extinctive prescription period will run in accordance with the principle of social justice and equity, as well as the idea of social justice and equity, and it cannot be seen that the insured accident occurred.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, ① the deceased working for the Navy was discovered on July 25, 1998 at around 22:40 as to the above death of the deceased, with the 4th Manyang Bara, and the military investigation agency concluded that the deceased died with his responsibilities and responsibility as an appointing officer, and ② the deceased’s father, who was the deceased’s father, was found to have been on July 3, 200 to have been on the ground that the deceased’s death had not been caused by the death of the deceased at the 4th Manyang Manyang Ba, and that the deceased’s death had not been caused by the death of the deceased, and that there was no evidence to acknowledge it on December 4, 200, which caused the death of the non-party 1 to have been found to have been on the ground of the non-party’s new conviction and the non-party’s non-party’s non-party’s non-party’s death. However, the lower court’s judgment was final and conclusive.

Examining the above facts in accordance with the legal principles as seen earlier, since the first military investigative agency concluded that a private person of the deceased was a simple suicide, until the decision of this case was made that the deceased died in a state where he could not withstand physical or mental suffering due to the sensacy, etc., whether or not the occurrence of the insurance accident occurred due to the death in a state where the deceased could not make a free decision, is objectively unclear. Thus, the decision of this case was made so that the occurrence of the insurance accident can be objectively confirmed, and the plaintiffs knew or could know the occurrence of the insurance accident. Thus, the extinctive prescription of the plaintiffs' insurance claim against the defendants should begin on October 21, 2009.

Meanwhile, according to the records, even though the plaintiffs filed an application with the Navy Chief of Staff for confirmation of death on the grounds of the instant decision and received a written confirmation of death on December 26, 2012, it shall be deemed that the occurrence of an insurance accident was resolved as long as the facts and causes of suicide of the deceased are specifically revealed by the decision of the instant case, and as long as the facts and causes of suicide of the deceased are revealed, the situation where the occurrence of the insurance accident was objectively unclear is not clear, and the plaintiffs cannot exercise their right to claim insurance. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the statute

3. Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise on the grounds stated in its reasoning that the statute of limitations for the right to claim insurance proceeds from the time when the Plaintiffs received the deceased’s certificate of death on duty. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the starting point of extinctive prescription

4. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal by the Defendants, the part of the judgment below against the Defendants is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)