(영문) 대법원 2020.3.12.선고 2019다290129 판결

1. Where an insurance contractor concludes an insurance contract with a view to illegally acquiring the insurance proceeds through a large number of insurance contracts, requiring the payment of the insurance proceeds pursuant to the insurance contract for this purpose may deviate from the social reasonableness by inducing speculative spirit to gain unjust profits by abusing the insurance contract. Moreover, such insurance contract would be null and void against the good morals and other social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act, as it harms the purpose of the insurance system, destroying the risk of decentralization, and harming the lives of the large number of subscribers, thereby impairing the foundation of the insurance system. In addition, even if there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the insurance proceeds were concluded for the purpose of denying the acquisition of the insurance proceeds, it may be acknowledged that the insurance contracts were concluded with a large number of policyholders’ occupation and property status, the timing and nature of concluding multiple insurance contracts, and circumstances after concluding the insurance contract, and thus, it is difficult for the insurance contractor to intensively conclude an insurance contract with a view to taking account of the fact that there was an excessive amount of insurance proceeds under consideration of the following circumstances: (i) the fact that the insurance contracts were concluded with a large number of reasons for insurance contracts.

2. After finding the facts as indicated in its holding, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant paid a large amount of revenues as the guaranteed insurance premium, on the grounds that, in light of the type and number of insurance contracts concluded by the Defendant as the insured as the insured, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have bought multiple insurance policies on a short-term and intensive basis without reasonable grounds; that, among the insurance contracts concluded by the Defendant as the insured, the number of insurance days for which the daily amount of hospitalization was paid is not large; that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant actively concluded an insurance contract; that there is no insurance premium to be paid by the Defendant as the daily amount of hospitalization; that is, the Defendant’s insurance premium to be paid by the Defendant as the guaranteed insurance premium; that is, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant paid the insurance amount after five years from the conclusion of the instant insurance contract; that only the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff was aimed at unfairly acquiring the insurance amount to the Defendant at the time of entering into the instant insurance contract; and that there is insufficient reason to recognize the Plaintiff’s allegation that the instant insurance contract was null and void due to good morals and other social order.

3. A. We examine the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. On the other hand, the Defendant’s insurance contract was concluded 1,53,216 at the time of the instant 36 insurance contract with Defendant 1, 40 days prior to the conclusion of the instant insurance contract with Defendant 2, and the Defendant’s insurance contract was concluded 20 days prior to the date of the instant 10-day medical treatment. In addition, the Defendant’s insurance contract was concluded 10 days prior to the date of the instant 4 insurance contract with Defendant 2, and the Defendant’s insurance contract was concluded 10 days prior to the date of the instant 10-day medical treatment. The Defendant’s insurance contract was concluded 10 days prior to the date of the instant 4-day medical treatment. The Defendant’s insurance contract was concluded 4 days prior to the date of the instant 6-day medical treatment. It is reasonable to view that it was difficult to view that the Defendant’s insurance contract was concluded 10 days prior to the date of the instant insurance contract.

B. In full view of all the circumstances, including the above Defendant’s financial status, the scale and nature of the insurance contract, and circumstances before and after the conclusion of the insurance contract, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s conclusion of the insurance contract of this case is aimed at preparation for a pure risk to life, body, etc. Rather, there is sufficient room to deem that the Defendant concluded the insurance contract of this case with the aim of unfairly acquiring insurance proceeds by undermining insurance accidents by entering into a multiple insurance contract. Nevertheless, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the insurance contract of this case was null and void against good morals and other social order. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on Article 103 of the Civil Act without exhaust all necessary deliberations, and thereby adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation in the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.