[1] The meaning of suicide under an insurance contract covering death as an insured event, which is stipulated as the insurer's exemption from liability, and whether it constitutes suicide in a case where the insured causes death in a situation where it is unable to make a free decision due to mental illness, etc. (negative)

[2] The standard for determining whether an insured person’s suicide was killed in a state where the insured was unable to make a free decision due to mental illness

[3] The case holding that in a case where the beneficiary of a mutual aid agreement committed suicide in a situation where: (a) the beneficiary of a mutual aid agreement applied for sick leave in the workplace; (b) requested the hospital to repeat the medical certificate; and (c) provided the medical certificate, which is a "Sull Euld Euld Euld"; and (d) took care of his wife, etc. in the vicinity of the residence; and (b) caused suicide, the deceased cannot be deemed as committing suicide in a situation where free decision-making cannot be made due

[1] In light of the legislative intent of Articles 659(1) and 732-2 of the Commercial Act, where suicide is stipulated as an insurer’s exemption from liability in an insurance contract which covers death as an insured event, 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 death, and it does not include cases where the insured caused death in a state where he/she cannot make a free decision due to mental illness, etc.

[2] In principle, the insured’s act of suicide falls under the grounds for exemption of the insurer unless it does not fall under the case where the insured’s act of suicide did not result in a free decision-making process due to mental illness, etc. The issue of whether there was a death in an irrecoverable state such as mental illness, etc. should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the age and character of the person who committed suicide, physical and mental psychological condition of the person who committed suicide, the occurrence time of mental illness, the progress and degree of the mental illness, and the detailed conditions at the time of the suicide, the surrounding circumstances at which the person was faced with the suicide, the suicide behavior of the person who committed suicide at the time of the suicide, the time and place of the act of suicide

[3] The case holding that in a case where the beneficiary of a mutual aid agreement requested a medical certificate to require the medical certificate in order to stop the work by applying for sick leave in the workplace, and complaining for unstable and desire to care at the hospital, and the sick was issued with a medical certificate which is a "Sule Euld Euld," and where the deceased committed suicide while drinking away agrochemicals with his wife, etc. in the vicinity of the residence, the deceased did not seem to have long the time of the occurrence, but did not seem to have long the time of the occurrence, and it was difficult to view that the deceased committed suicide without free decision-making due to mental illness, etc. in light of the deceased's age, ordinary character, home environment, day of suicide, day of suicide, and the deceased's psychological condition, time, place, method, etc. of suicide, which can be inferred from the contents of the remaining note before committing suicide.

[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

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2005Da49713 Decided March 10, 2006 (Gong2006Sang, 610), Supreme Court Decision 2007Da76696 Decided August 21, 2008 (Gong2008Ha, 1284) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2005Da70540, 70557 Decided April 14, 2006

Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (Law Firm Democratic, Attorneys Kim Sung-min et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2009Na36618 decided November 12, 2009

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 659(1) of the Commercial Act provides that an insurer shall not be liable to pay the insured amount if an insured event has occurred due to the intention or gross negligence of the policyholder, the insured, or the beneficiary. Article 732-2 of the Commercial Act provides that even if an accident which caused the death as an insured event occurs due to the gross negligence of the policyholder, the insured, or the beneficiary, the insurer shall not be exempted from liability to pay the insured amount. According to the above provision, in an insurance contract which covers the death, an 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 addition, the insured’s intentional occurrence of an insured event is contrary to the good faith principle under an insurance contract, and even in such a case, there is a possibility of using the insurance contract for an improper purpose, such as acquisition of the insurance amount. In light of the legislative purport of Articles 659(1) and 732-2 of the Commercial Act, suicide is stipulated as an insurer’s exemption from the insurance contract which covers the life of the deceased and caused the death to its own death.

Therefore, if the insured commits a suicide, it constitutes an exemption from liability of the insurer, in principle, unless it does not constitute a case where the insured commits a death without free decision-making due to mental illness, etc. The issue of whether or not the insured died without free decision-making due to mental illness, etc. as referred to in this context, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the age and character of the person who committed the suicide, the physical and mental psychological condition of the person who committed the suicide, the occurrence time of the mental illness, the progress and degree thereof, and the detailed conditions at the time of the suicide, the surrounding circumstances at the time of the suicide, the suicide behavior of the person who committed the suicide at the time of the suicide, the time and place of the suicide, and the motive, procedure, method, and attitude of the suicide (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da70540, 70557, Apr. 14, 206

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the deceased's non-party (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") was a public official of 33 years of age in charge of health examinations at Yangyang-gun's Health Center preventive medicine department. On June 11, 2007, the deceased applied for sick leave and found a hospital located in the early Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of Suyang-gun, and was diagnosed with severe live live live live live live live live live lives of the deceased. The deceased, at around 18:40 of the same day, did not adapt to the changes in the office due to live live lives of his or her own character and did not adapt to the changes in his or her office, and did not want to get out of the live lives office and did not have his or 27.

However, according to the records, the deceased has one male and female between the plaintiff 1 in a brupt and implicit nature. At the time of the suicide in this case, there was no particular difficulty in the family or workplace at the time of the suicide in this case, and in 2007, there was no fact that the deceased had been treated with mental illness such as depression, etc. in the previous time, and at the time of the regular health examination in 2006, there was no fear that the deceased would have been unable to cope with mental or physical illness during the previous month." The deceased called "the deceased was called by the office on June 11, 2007, that "the deceased will live in sick as a day without physical body," the deceased requested that the hospital find the body items in the written questioning necessary for the diagnosis of mental illness, and requested the deceased to delete all the fact that the deceased had received the written diagnosis from his own computer to make it difficult to get the doctor in charge of uneasiness, desire, etc., and it was necessary to remove the written diagnosis.

If the facts are as above, although the deceased was diagnosed by the Eulph on the day of the suicide, the time of the occurrence does not seem to have long long, and in light of the deceased’s age, ordinary character, family environment, the day of suicide, the behavior on the day of suicide, the psychological condition of the deceased who was remaining before the deceased’s suicide, and the time, place, method, etc. of the suicide, it is difficult to view the deceased as having committed suicide in a situation where it is impossible to make free decisions due to mental illness, etc.

Nevertheless, the court below held that suicide of the deceased was committed in a state where it is impossible to make free decisions due to depression, and thus constitutes an exception to exemption from the mutual aid agreement of this case. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on exemption from liability under the above insurance terms and conditions or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion

The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)