[1] The principle of interpreting terms and conditions of ordinary transactions

[2] The validity of the indemnity clause in a case where the indemnity clause of a personal insurance contract provides that the insurance accident shall not be compensated for not only intentionally but also by negligent act (negative)

[3] The case holding that in a case where the insured's death due to addiction or damage caused by intentional self-harm and thus the private person of the insured was classified as the above intentional self-harm, if the insured's death did not intentionally cause the death, the insurance accident is not caused by the act which is deemed as a whole, and thus, the insurance accident is not caused by the act which is assessed intentionally, and thus, the exemption clause as to such case is null and void

[1] Article 5 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act / [2] Articles 663, 732-2, and 739 of the Commercial Act / [3] Article 5 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act, Articles 663, 732-2, and 739 of the Commercial Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Da12009 delivered on June 25, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2306), Supreme Court Decision 2005Da35226 Delivered on October 28, 2005 (Gong2005Ha, 1862), Supreme Court Decision 2006Da72093 Delivered on February 22, 2007 (Gong2007Sang, 498) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2003Da60952 Delivered on June 25, 2004

Future Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm ice, Attorneys Ba-ju et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant

Incheon District Court Decision 2008Na18093, 18109 Decided April 29, 2009

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Incheon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The contents of general transaction terms and conditions shall be objectively and uniformly interpreted on the basis of the average customer's understanding potential without considering the intent or specific circumstances of individual contract-holders. When the contents of the terms and conditions are not clear or doubtful in terms of customer protection, the terms and conditions should be restricted and interpreted favorably to the customer and disadvantageously to the contractor of the terms and conditions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da12009, Jun. 25, 1996; 2005Da35226, Oct. 28, 2005). Meanwhile, according to the provisions of Articles 732-2, 739, and 663 of the Commercial Act, with respect to an insurance that covers death or bodily injury as an insured event, the terms and conditions to the effect that the insurance contract in question shall not be compensated not only due to an act intentionally deemed as a whole and also due to an act which is assessed as a negligence (including a gross negligence) but also due to an act which is assessed as a negligence (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da6365, Jun. 29, 2005, 2004).

In light of the reasoning of the judgment below and the record, among the insurance contracts in this case, Article 1(1) of the Korean Standard Disease and Death Classification Table (X60-X84) provides that the accident is subject to the coverage of contingent external accidents corresponding to S00-Y84 under the Korean Standard Disease and Death Classification (S0-Y84), and Article 2(2) provides that intentional self-injury (X60-X84) shall not be paid out of the contingent external accidents corresponding to S0-Y84 under the Korean Standard Disease and Death Classification. The insurance contract in this case provides that the accident-related special contract in this case provides that the intentional self-injury (X60-X84) among the above disaster classification table as a type of the death insurance contract shall be deemed to have the nature of the exemption clause in the form of the above provision. On the other hand, the Korean Standard Disease and Death Classification Table (X60-X84) contains intentional self-harm or damage caused by the death of the insured (X60-X84).

In addition, in light of the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, even though the non-party, while being drunk, was aware of the symptoms of his influence of normal carbon gases due to his influence of the symptoms, and died in excess of the inhaled volume. Although the non-party was sufficiently aware of his symptoms due to his influence of normal carbon gases, and the non-party's death was caused by his influence of normal carbon gases, the non-party's death cannot be deemed as a result of the non-party's intentional act by viewing the non-party's death as a whole, unless the non-party had intended the result of his death.

Nevertheless, the lower court deemed that the part of the above disaster classification table, which provides for an intentional self-injury (X60-X84) in which the insurance money is not paid, is excluded from the disaster subject to intentional self-injury separate from suicide, and determined that the Nonparty did not intend to obtain the result of the death, as long as the cause of the insurance accident in this case constitutes intentional self-injury due to addiction and exposure of the person caused by butane gas, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the validity of the indemnity clause in the interpretation of the terms and conditions, failing to properly assess intentional act and negligence, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)