The legal nature of Article 731(1) of the Commercial Act (i.e., mandatory provisions), and whether the consent of the insured required in an insurance contract covering the death of another person as an insured event is included in the comprehensive, implied, and presumed consent (negative)

Article 731(1) of the Commercial Act provides that the insurance contract which covers the death of another person as an insured event shall be regulated to eliminate the risk of gambling insurance, the risk of murder of the insured, and the risk of infringement on public order and good morals. The purpose of Article 731(1) of the Commercial Act is to clarify the timing and method of consent and eliminate the possibility of dispute by clarifying the consent. Thus, the consent of another person who is the insured shall be obtained in writing individually for each insurance contract, and there is insufficient comprehensive or implied consent or constructive consent.

Article 731(1) of the Commercial Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm Bobi, Attorney Park Jong-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Chang-hoon, Counsel for defendant)

Supreme Court Decision 2001Da49234 Delivered on March 29, 2002

Seoul High Court Decision 2002Na20621 delivered on April 22, 2003

Of the lower judgment, the part against the Defendant ordering Plaintiff 2 to pay KRW 310 million and delay damages therefor is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The remainder of the appeal against Plaintiff 2 and the appeal against Plaintiff 1 are dismissed, respectively. The costs of appeal against each of the lower judgment are assessed against the Defendant.

1. In determining the defendant's assertion that the accident of this case does not result from a disaster but from a suicide or death by himself, which does not constitute a traffic disaster under the terms and conditions of insurance, the court below acknowledged the facts based on the employed evidence, and rejected the above assertion on the ground that the accident of this case was caused by the negligence of entering the steel at the location of the accident of this case for returning home under the influence of alcohol, and that the accident of this case constitutes a contingency accident. In light of the purport of the records and the judgment of remand, the court below's above measures are just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles as alleged in the ground of appeal No. 2.

2. The court below held as to the defendant's assertion that the above insurance contract was invalid without the consent of the non-party 1 (the insured's 10 million won) on August 4, 1997 and the non-party 1 (the insured's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's 199.

However, Article 731(1) of the Commercial Act is a mandatory provision prepared to eliminate the risk of gambling insurance, the risk of murder of the insured, and the risk of infringement on public order and good morals in an insurance contract which covers the death of another person as an insured event. Since the purpose of Article 731(1) of the Commercial Act is to eliminate the dispute by clarifying the time and method of consent, the consent of another person who is the insured at the time of conclusion of the insurance contract is to be obtained in writing individually regarding each insurance contract, and the consent of the insured person must be obtained in a comprehensive, implied, or presumed consent is insufficient. However, according to the facts and records acknowledged by the court below, according to the facts and records acknowledged by the court below, it cannot be deemed that Nonparty 1, the insured, was consented individually to each of the above insurance contracts even if considering the remaining circumstances inside the court below, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Nevertheless, the court below accepted Plaintiff 2’s claim for the insurance money of this case based on each of the above insurance contracts where it acknowledged that the written consent was made solely on the above reasons. In so doing, there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to written consent in the insurance of another person’s life and contrary to the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal No. 1

3. In accordance with the purport of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings before the Amendment, which is the Constitutional Court of April 24, 2003, the Plaintiffs shall not separately withdraw part of the claim from the date following that of February 23, 1998 to August 21, 1998 by "14% per annum from that of August 23, 1998, 13.5% per annum from that of November 30, 1998; 12% per annum from that of November 30, 198 from that of November 31, 1998; 11.5% per annum from that of the following day to December 31, 31, 1998; and 11% per annum from that of May 31, 2003 to that of June 31, 2003."

4. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant ordering the plaintiff 2 to pay KRW 310 million and delay damages therefor shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the court below. The remaining appeals against the plaintiff 2 and the appeal against the plaintiff 1 shall be dismissed, respectively. The costs of each dismissed appeal shall be borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)