2014Da201476 Insurance proceeds

1. A;

2. B

3. C

Hyundai Maritime Fire Insurance Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 2013Na2012592 Decided December 19, 2013

June 23, 2016

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. (1) The lower court: (1) concluded the instant insurance contract with the Defendant for the reason that the deceased was unable to receive the 1string time for the 1string of the 2ndring of the 1string of the 1string of the 2ndring of the 1string of the 1string of the 1string of the 2ndring of the 1string of the 1string of the 1string of the 1string of the 1string of the 1string of the 1string of the 1string of the 1string of the 1string of the 2ndring of the 1string of the 1string of the 1string of the 1string of the 2ndring of the 1string of the 2ndring of the 2ndring of the 1string of the 2ndring of the 1string of the 2ndring of the 2ndring of the 1string of the 1string of the 1string of the 10th following surgery.

2. However, we cannot accept the above judgment of the court below as it is.

A. The term “overcoming accidents” among the “overcoming and remote accidents, which are the requirements of the instant insurance accident” under the instant insurance clause refers to all the causes of the injury or death, not due to the physical defect of the insured, i.e., illness or physical physical factors, but due to external factors. As to the causal link between the external nature of such accidents and the consequences of injury or death, the claimant has the burden of proof (see Supreme Court Decisions 2010Da12241, Sept. 30, 2010; 2013Da210466, Jul. 10, 2014).

B. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the record, the lower court determined that “the medical malpractice in violation of the duty of care for cerebrovascular and its injury” was an external accident, but on the other hand, as stated by the lower court, it is difficult to deem that the wing-out surgery, which is the treatment of the deceased’s wing-out infection, is likely to cause high blood pressure or is related to cerebrovascular, and it is difficult to readily conclude that the deceased’s wing-out surgery itself caused to her as an external accident (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da13367, 2010Da13374, Sept. 9, 200) was an active act by the medical personnel of the above hospital, and there is no evidence to find that the cerebral-out surgery was caused by the deceased’s act of violating the above medical personnel’s duty of care, and thus, it is difficult to conclude that the cerebral-out surgery was caused by the deceased’s injury.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

The presiding judge shall keep the record of the Justice

Justices Park Byung-hee

Chief Justice Park Jong-young

Justices Kim Jae-han