[1] In case where an accident occurs due to the intention of the insured, etc. in an insurance contract whose death is an insured event, whether the insurer is exempted from liability (affirmative)

[2] The meaning of suicide stipulated as the insurer's reason for exemption in an insurance contract which covers death as an insured event, and whether the case of death occurred in a situation where the insured cannot make a free decision due to mental illness, etc. (negative)

[3] The case holding that the above accident does not constitute "a case of damaging himself by intention," which is the insurer's exemption from liability under the insurance policy, in case where he died of his body out of beeaca in a extreme and uneasible mental condition among married fightings

[1] Article 659(1) of the Commercial Act provides that an insurer shall not be liable to pay the insured amount if the insured event has occurred due to bad faith or gross negligence of the policyholder, the insured, or the beneficiary, and Article 732-2 of the Commercial Act provides that an insurer shall not be exempted from liability to pay the insured amount even in cases where an accident which caused death as an insured event occurred due to gross negligence of the policyholder, the insured, or the beneficiary. According to the above provision, in an insurance contract which covers death as an insured event, the insurer shall not be liable to pay the insurance amount in cases where an accident occurred due to bad faith of the insured, etc., and this is contrary to the principle of good faith in the insurance contract, and even in such cases, if the insurance contract

[2] In light of the legislative intent of Articles 659(1) and 732-2 of the Commercial Act, where suicide is stipulated as the insurer's exemption from liability in an insurance contract which covers the death as an insured event, the suicide refers to an act of the deceased who intentionally cut his/her own life for its purpose and cut his/her own life to cause the death result, and it cannot be deemed that the insured's act of causing the death result in a situation where it is impossible for the insured to make a free decision due to mental illness, etc. In addition, if the direct cause of the death result from the external factor, the insured's occurrence constitutes an accident as an accident which is not intentional by the insured.

[3] The case holding that the above accident does not constitute "a case of damaging himself by intention," which is the insurer's exemption from liability under the insurance policy, in the event that he died of his body out of beeaca in a extreme and uneasible mental condition among married fightings, and where he died of his body out of beeaca in a extreme and unstable mental condition, the accident is an contingent accident that resulted in the death by falling the deceased under a limited decision

[1] Articles 659(1) and 732-2 of the Commercial Act / [2] Articles 659(1) and 732-2 of the Commercial Act / [3] Articles 659(1) and 732-2 of the Commercial Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 2001Da49012 Delivered on October 12, 2001

Plaintiff 1 and three others (Attorneys Kim Young-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Western, Attorneys Lee Du-sung, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2004Na72688 delivered on August 12, 2005

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

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the records, the insurance contract of this case consists of a main contract and a special contract for death from a disaster. In the case of a main contract, 100 million won shall be paid if the insured dies during the insurance period, but 30 million won shall be paid if the insured dies for reasons other than disaster before two years elapse from the date of the insurance contract. In the case of a special contract for death from a disaster, 50 million won shall be paid if the insured dies for reasons other than a traffic disaster during the insurance period. However, the insured does not pay the insurance money to the insured, and the insured does not pay the insurance money to the insured “if he/she injures himself/herself due to a mental disease” and the “if he/she commits suicide after two years from the date of the commencement of liability” are to pay the insurance money. The insurance contract of this case refers to an accident as an accident by a disaster classification as an incidental external accident, and the accident classification table of this case provides for one of the items as classified in the disaster classification table.

Article 659 (1) of the Commercial Act provides that an insurer shall not be liable to pay the insured amount if the insured event has occurred due to the intention or gross negligence of the policyholder, the insured, or the beneficiary, and Article 732-2 of the Commercial Act provides that an insurer shall not be exempted from the liability to pay the insured amount even in the event of an accident caused by the gross negligence of the policyholder, the insured, or the beneficiary in the insurance contract which has caused the death as an insured event. According to the above provision, the insurer shall not be liable to pay the insurance amount in the event of an accident caused by the intention of the insured, etc. in the insurance contract which covers the death. This is because it is contrary to the principle of good faith in the insurance contract to cause the insured

In light of the legislative intent of Articles 659(1) and 732-2 of the Commercial Act as mentioned above, where suicide is stipulated as the reason for exemption of the insurer in an insurance contract which covers death as an insured event, the suicide refers to an act of the deceased who intentionally cut his/her own life for its purpose and caused the result of death by intentionally cutting his/her own life for its purpose, and it cannot be deemed as including the case where the insured caused the result of death in a situation where it is impossible for him/her to make free decision due to mental illness, etc. In addition, if the direct cause of the death occurred due to external factor, the insured accident constitutes an accident which is not caused by the insured's intentional intention.

As examined below, the accident of this case is an contingent accident that resulted in death due to the fall of the deceased in a restricted state of free decision-making, and falls under the accident of this case under the insurance contract of this case since it does not fall under “the intentional harm to himself” or “the intentional self-harm.” Although the court below stated different reasons, it is just in the conclusion that the accident of this case constitutes a disaster under the insurance contract of this case, and there is no error of misapprehending legal principles as to the interpretation of the insurance contract of this case, or by misunderstanding facts contrary to the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

기록에 의하여 살펴보면, 망인은 이 사건 사고 이전부터 남편에 대한 재정보증 내지 경제적 문제로 남편뿐만 아니라 시댁, 친정과 계속 갈등을 겪어 왔을 뿐만 아니라, 세 자녀를 돌보면서 남편의 회사업무도 돕는 등으로 과도한 업무에 시달려 오기도 했고, 출산 후 이 사건 사고에 이르기까지 불과 1년 만에 충수절제술을 받고 각종 병명으로 병원에 오가며 신체적, 정신적으로 많이 쇠약해져 있었던 사정, 이 사건 당일 남편인 원고 1이 술에 취하여 귀가하였다가 망인이 손위 동서(원고 1의 형수)와 전화를 하면서 원고 1에 대한 재정보증문제로 언쟁을 하는 것을 보고 망인에게 전화기를 던지고 자녀들이 보는 앞에서 수회 뺨을 때리자 망인도 흥분하여 텔레비전을 넘어뜨리는 등으로 격렬하게 부부싸움을 한 사정, 원고 1이 함께 죽어버리자고 하면서 망인의 멱살을 잡고 베란다 난간으로 끌고 가서 망인의 상체를 베란다 밖으로 밀고, 자녀들은 망인이 떨어지지 않도록 다리를 잡고 울면서 원고 1에게 애원을 하여 만류하는 상황에서, 원고 1이 하던 행동을 멈추고 베란다를 떠나 거실로 가는 순간, 망인이 베란다 밖으로 뛰어 내린 사정을 알 수 있는바, 위 사정에 의하면, 이 사건 당시 망인은 극도의 흥분되고 불안한 심리상태를 이기지 못하고 순간적인 정신적 공황상태에서 자신의 행동으로 인하여 발생할 사망의 결과와 그로 인한 가족들 및 주변 상황의 변화에 대하여 제대로 이해하거나 예측하지도 못한 채 극도로 모멸스럽고 격분된 순간을 벗어날 방편으로 베란다에서 뛰어 내림으로써 자유로운 의사결정에 의하지 아니하고 사망의 결과에 이른 것으로 볼 수 있다.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the deceased's death constitutes a ground for exception to exemption from liability under the insurance clause of this case is correct, and there is no error in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the exemption from liability under the insurance clause of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)