[1] The starting point of the statute of limitations

[2] The case affirming the judgment below holding that in case where Gap sought a payment of the disaster death benefit under the insurance contract against Eul insurance company on the ground that the deceased died due to the negligence of a medical institution, the extinctive prescription of the insurance claim shall run from the time of the deceased's death or at least from the time when Gap filed a criminal complaint against

[1] Article 662 of the Commercial Act, Article 166(1) of the Civil Act / [2] Article 662 of the Commercial Act, Article 166(1) of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Da5422 delivered on May 12, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 1610), Supreme Court Decision 2003Da5573, 5580 Delivered on December 24, 2004, Supreme Court Decision 2007Da19624 Delivered on November 13, 2008 (Gong2008Ha, 1678)

Plaintiff (Attorney Park Jin-jin et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Heung Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm L&B Partners, Attorney Park Gyeong-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2011Na48836 decided April 18, 2013

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 62 of the Commercial Act provides that the right to claim the amount of insurance proceeds shall expire if it is not exercised within two years, and there is no provision regarding the starting point of reckoning the extinctive prescription of the right to claim the amount of insurance proceeds. Thus, Article 166(1) of the Civil Act provides that "the extinctive prescription shall run from when it is possible to exercise the right." Thus, the right to claim the amount of insurance proceeds is only abstract right before an occurrence of an insurance accident, and it becomes possible to exercise the right from the time when the occurrence of an insurance accident occurs. Barring special circumstances, in principle, it is reasonable to interpret that the extinctive prescription of the right to claim the amount of insurance proceeds runs from the time when the insurance accident occurred (see Supreme Court Decisions 97Da5422, May 12, 1998; 2003Da573, 5580, Dec. 24, 2004; 2010Da1780, etc.). It is reasonable to interpret the extinctive prescription period from the time when the insurance accident occurred without negligence.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning. If the deceased died from the negligence of a medical institution as alleged by the plaintiff, it is reasonable to deem that the deceased died on June 12, 2008, barring any special circumstance. Since the lawsuit in this case was filed on December 8, 2010 after two years have elapsed since the date of the occurrence of the insurance accident, the right to claim for the plaintiff was extinguished by prescription. Furthermore, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff, who is not a medical specialist, was unaware of the medical institution's negligence at the time of the deceased's death, and it constitutes a case where the claimant was unable to know the insurance accident without negligence because it was objectively unclear whether the insurance accident occurred at the time of the death of the deceased, and it is difficult to view that the plaintiff was not guilty of the non-prosecution disposition, or that the plaintiff was not aware of the possibility of the insurance accident in this case at least 7 medical institution's death without fault at the time of the death of the medical institution.

In light of the above legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no violation of law such as misapprehension of legal principles as to the starting point of extinctive prescription

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

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)