The case holding that an insured accident under the provisions of the Accumulation Insurance Contract does not fall under a sudden and conclusive external accident;

In a case where the insured, at night over 11 p.m., lost a direction sense while his/her human being was taken off at a dial time, and the passage or access of the person was prohibited, and in a case where he/she died when she was faced with the train where he/she was walking with the train where the risk of falling is high and difficult to evacuate, the insured is presumed to have been subject to the accident, considering the circumstance of the accident as the situation where the accident occurred in a temporary mental disability caused by alcohol, and the insured was forced to voluntarily and voluntarily suffer from such danger. Thus, the insured's act is objectively deemed to be suicide, and it does not constitute a sudden and incidental accident, which is an accident under the Terms and Conditions of the Accumulation Insurance in this case.

Article 730 of the Commercial Act

Seoul High Court Decision 88Na17643 delivered on March 17, 1989

Plaintiff 1 and four others

National Fire & Marine Corporation

Seoul Central District Court (88 Gohap38728) in the first instance trial

All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1, 2, 3, and 4 the amount of 4,705,882 won in each amount, the amount of 1,176,470 won in each amount, and the amount at the rate of 25 percent per annum from the day following the delivery of the complaint in this case to the day of complete payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant, and a declaration of provisional execution.

1. The above-mentioned evidence Nos. 1 (O. 1), 2 (O. 3 (O. 1), 1 Eul evidence No. 3 (O. 3), 3-6 of Eul evidence No. 3, 8-9 (O. 4) evidence No. 3, 3-9 of Eul evidence No. 3, 10-10 (O. 4), 3-10-3 of Eul evidence No. 3, 111 (O. 2), 3-12 (O. 1), 3-12 (O. 1), 3-2 of Eul evidence No. 4's death on behalf of the above defendant No. 4, and the above fact that the above defendant No. 9 was deceased on behalf of the above defendant No. 4, 10-1, 3-12 (O. 3), and 3-13 (O. 2's death report on the result of an investigation).

2. The plaintiffs' attorney asserted that the above non-party 2 entered into the above insurance contract in the name of the above non-party 4 and the non-party 1, and the defendant's attorney asserted that the above non-party 2 asserted that the above contract was concluded in the name of the above non-party 4. The defendant's attorney asserted that the above non-party 2, the statement of the evidence No. 2, the non-party 2's testimony at the court below and the non-party 3's testimony at the court below and the non-party 3's testimony at the court below's witness (excluding the part not trusted in the court below), and the non-party 1 and the above non-party 4 were employed by the above non-party 2 in the black-dried farm operated by the above non-party 2. The above non-party 2 recommended that the defendant company's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's non-party 4 and the above non-party 2's testimony.

According to the above facts, the plaintiff 1, who did not receive the power of attorney to conclude the insurance contract from the above non-party 4, had the above non-party 2, and entered into the above insurance contract with the defendant company, and the above non-party 4 or his agent entered into the above insurance contract. The above assertion by the plaintiff 4 or his agent is groundless.

In addition, even if the plaintiffs 1 made the above non-party 2 to enter into an insurance contract without the above non-party 4's consent, the above non-party 2 kept the premium after deducting 41,10 won per month from the above non-party 1 and the above non-party 4's salary, and paid the premium every three months after being notified of the payment of the premium. The above non-party 2 made the second insurance premium and confirmed the conclusion of the insurance contract. In light of the above evidence No. 2 and No. 2, the above non-party 2's testimony of the court below and the non-party 3's testimony of the non-party 4, and the non-party 2's testimony of the court below and the non-party 3's testimony of the above non-party 4 (excluding the above part which were not trusted in the above non-party 4's original insurance policy). The above non-party 2 made the above insurance contract at the defendant company's business office's 1 and the non-party 4's second insurance policy to be delivered to the above non-party 1 and the above non-party 2's second.

According to the above facts, the above non-party 4 believed that he was aware of the fact of concluding the insurance contract at the latest around April 1986 and did not raise any objection with the knowledge of the above fact of concluding the insurance contract, and confirmed the act of entering into the above insurance contract without obtaining the power of representation and by making the non-party 1 make the above non-party 2 (the above non-party 4 knew that it is not necessary to actively express his intention of ratification as a means of ratification as well as to bear the insurance premium if he did not recognize the above insurance contract). The above ratification made it effective against the above non-party 4 retroactively at the time of entering into the contract.

3. On this basis, the defendant's attorney argues that the policy holder of the above covered injury insurance contract is the plaintiff 1 or the above non-party 2, and since the insured is the non-party 4 above, it was concluded without the consent of the above non-party 4, the insured who is the insured. However, the policy holder of the above accumulated injury insurance contract is neither the plaintiff 1 nor the above non-party 2, but the above non-party 4, and the above non-party 1 entered into the above insurance contract by making the above non-party 2 without obtaining the power of representation from the above non-party 4, as seen above. Thus, the above argument on the premise that the plaintiff 1 or the above non-party 2 is the policy holder of the insurance contract of this

In addition, Defendant 4 asserted that the insurer should be exempted from liability because the above non-party 4's death did not meet the above insurance accident requirement, i.e., e., e., e., e., an accident, and the non-party 4's death at the above-mentioned office, and the defendant's attorney argued that the above non-party 3, Eul's evidence 1, Eul's evidence 3-2, Eul's evidence 3-5, Eul's evidence 3-7, Eul's evidence 4-1 through 14, the non-party 3, non-party 2, and non-party 2's witness's testimony at the above-mentioned office, and thus, the above 5th day after the above 4th day after the above 5th day after the death of the non-party 1, 2, and the above 1,000-day seller's body or the non-party 4th day after the death of the non-party 1's body.

According to the above facts, it is presumed that the above non-party 4 was involved in the accident because he was in the central part of the steel bridge with a high risk of falling and difficult to evacuate because he was unable to escape from the railroad line that is under the influence of her human being under the influence of alcohol for more than 11 hours at night, and that he was faced with the accident because he was unable to evacuate to the shelter of his nearby wife because he did not evacuate to the shelter. Thus, the above non-party 4's death is objectively deemed not to fall under the act of suicide not compensated under the above terms and conditions, or the act that can be deemed to fall under the act of suicide or the loss of brain disease or body and body, and thus, it does not constitute an accident of suicide, and thus, the defendant's assertion that the defendant should be exempted from liability is justified.

4. If so, the plaintiffs' claim of this case based on the premise that the defendant is liable for the payment of insurance money under the agreement will be dismissed as it does not have to be judged further, without merit. Since the original judgment is based on this conclusion, the original judgment is just, and the plaintiffs' appeal pointing out this error is dismissed as without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs who have lost them.

Judges Choi Han-ro (Presiding Judge)