The case holding that "the occurrence of a disaster or a disability during the insurance period" cannot be interpreted as a ground for the payment of insurance proceeds in the insurance clauses where "if the insured has caused a disaster during the insurance period and becomes a state of disability prescribed by direct cause of the disaster, it shall be paid to the beneficiary of the accident benefits agreed upon."

Article 105 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Korea Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Park Jong-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 2007Na18423 decided May 28, 2008

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. In light of the circumstances in the judgment of the court of first instance which admitted the judgment of the court of first instance and recognized by the evidence adopted, the court below held that the accident in this case constitutes an accident as a contingent accident under the insurance terms and conditions as stated in the judgment, even if the occurrence of the accident in this case conflicts with the Plaintiff's active and physical factors, since the accident in this case occurred as a direct cause of the disability in this case. In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the grounds for the payment

2. The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that Article 9 of the Korea Franchise Disaster Guarantee Special Agreement provides that "A company will pay disaster disability benefits agreed upon to the beneficiary if a disaster occurs to the insured during the insurance period and becomes a disability of Grades 1 through 6 in the disability classification table directly due to such disaster, and this purport is that the disaster and disability will occur during the insurance period, and since the plaintiff was diagnosed on April 6, 2006 that the first disability remains during the insurance period after the expiration of the insurance period, the accident occurred during the insurance period, but the accident occurred during the insurance period, but it does not fall under the above insurance period after the expiration of the insurance period, and thus, it cannot be interpreted that the accident and disability should occur during the insurance period (it is no longer required to undergo a diagnosis during the insurance period). The judgment of the court below is justified in light of the legal principles as to the interpretation of the above insurance contract and the legal principles as to the interpretation of the above provision, as otherwise alleged in the ground for appeal.

Supreme Court Decision 2002Da20889 Decided August 20, 2004 and Supreme Court Decision 2005Da63221 Decided December 28, 2007, etc. cited in the grounds of appeal, are not appropriate to be invoked in the instant case with different contents and purport.

3. 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 Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)