Terms and Conditions of Exemption from Drinking Driving in Personnel Insurance (negative)

According to the provisions of Articles 732-2, 739, and 663 of the Commercial Act, with respect to personal insurance which covers death or bodily injury as an insured accident, even if the insured event is not caused intentionally but caused gross negligence. In relation to drinking driving, it is not possible to deny the possibility of the occurrence of an insurance accident compared to the case of a person who drives without drinking, or the possibility of the occurrence of an accident. In addition, the personal car of the possibility of the occurrence of an accident is not an intentional crime between the members in the insurance, unless there are special circumstances, it is about the drinking driving itself, and it is not directly about the death or bodily injury, and it cannot be said that the degree of the accident does not go against the good faith and ethics of the parties in the insurance contract with compensation for damage. Thus, the damage suffered by the driver while driving under drinking is not compensated for the damage caused by the accident as a whole. In addition, if the accident is evaluated as invalid as a whole as a result of an act committed as a result of an act committed as a whole (including negligence).

Articles 659(1), 663, 732-2 and 739 of the Commercial Act

Supreme Court Decision 89Meu17591 Decided May 25, 1990 (Gong1990, 1364), Supreme Court Decision 96Da4909 Decided April 26, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1719), Supreme Court Decision 97Da27039 Decided March 27, 199 (Gong198Sang, 1173)

Cho Nam-hee et al.

Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Young-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Suwon District Court Decision 97Na5098 delivered on September 12, 1997

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, Article 732-2 of the Commercial Act provides that "if an accident occurred due to the gross negligence of the policyholder, the insured, or the beneficiary of the insurance contract that caused the death, the insurer shall not be exempted from liability for paying the insurance amount." Article 739 of the Commercial Act provides that the above provision shall not apply mutatis mutandis to an accident insurance contract under Article 739 of the Commercial Act. Meanwhile, Article 663 of the Commercial Act provides that the insurance contract constitutes an insurance contract which caused injury to the policyholder, the insured, or the beneficiary of the insurance, so the above provision shall apply. Thus, if the insurance contract constitutes an accident under which the injury was caused by intentional negligence, the defendant shall be liable to pay the insurance amount under the insurance contract even if it was caused by the insurance accident under which the above accident was caused by the accident without drinking, and even if it was caused by the accident under consideration of alcohol driving, it shall not be deemed that there was an intentional act of the beneficiary, as well as an intentional act of the beneficiary, which caused the accident under consideration of the insurance contract.

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

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)