[1] The degree of proof that the insured's exemption, which is the insurer's reason for exemption, intentionally undermines himself/herself

[2] The case holding that although the insured died from a different flag with others, it cannot be viewed as "the case where the insured intentionally injures himself/herself"

[1] In the ordinary insurance clause of an insurance contract, the insurer is responsible to prove the facts constituting the above reasons for exemption in order to exempt the insurer from liability for the payment of the insurance proceeds, and in this case, it shall prove the existence of objective physical evidence, such as the statement of intent to commit suicide, and the fact that there is no reasonable doubt about the possibility of not committing suicide from ordinary awareness.

[2] The case holding that the insured cannot be deemed to constitute "the case where the insured intentionally injures himself," on the ground that there was an obvious circumstantial fact that there was no reasonable doubt as to the possibility of not committing suicide in ordinary people's common sense, or that there was an accident due to the insured's acknowledgement of the possibility that he could easily kill the weather vehicle, even though he did not know that there was an accident due to his own acceptance of the result, even though he did not constitute "the case where the insured intentionally injures himself".

[1] Articles 659(1) and 732-2 of the Commercial Act; Article 261 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 659(1) and 732-2 of the Commercial Act; Article 261 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2000Da12495 Delivered on January 30, 2001

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Kim Jong-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd. and one other (Law Firm Chungcheong, Attorneys Park Yong-ok et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 99Na31874 delivered on June 27, 2001

The part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiffs as to the remainder except the claim portion based on the non-distribution spectrum transport accident insurance contract against Defendant Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd., is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court recognized the following facts by comprehensively taking account of the evidence adopted in its judgment.

On January 31, 1998, at around 03:24, 1998, the deceased Nonparty 1 died due to the diversities, two opening frame, light cutting, etc. on the front part of the front side of the train with different lines in the street at the 39km point in the chill line of the city of Suwon-si, Seoul.

The accident points are set up two parallel lines on the west and two parallel lines on the west, and about 35 meters wide. The area around the west of the Seoul metropolitan area is a place where there is a lot of passage by the general train, there is no street, etc., and the area around the railroad is a turbbed at the point where there is no street etc., and there is an underground lane and delivery at the point 400 meters south of the accident. At the point 50 meters north of the west river, an underground lane and delivery, which runs along the rail for pedestrians and vehicles, are installed. At both outermost areas of the west river, construction sites are located, and authorization was rare, but both rail lines are installed from the west river to the above construction site, and there is no installation of a iron fence and a protection wall to prevent pedestrians from passing along the railroad, and no delivery of the protection wall is installed.

이 사건 사고 당시 기관사이던 소외 2가 사고열차를 시속 약 80 내지 90㎞로 운행하고 있었는데, 야간에 전조등을 켜고 이러한 속도로 진행하는 열차의 기관사는 보통 약 120 내지 150m 앞의 거리에서 사람 정도 크기의 물체는 발견할 수 있는바, 소외 2은 사고지점에 이르러 쿵하는 소리만 듣고 레일 부근의 돌에 부딪힌 정도로만 여겼을 뿐 소외 1을 보지 못하였고, 사고가 난 후에 서울지방철도청 지도계장인 소외 3이 수색역에 있는 위 열차의 앞쪽 배장기의 우측 하단 부분에 혈흔이 묻어있는 것을 발견하여 비로소 위 열차로 인하여 소외 1이 사망하였음을 알게 되었다.

The body of Nonparty 1 was cut back in the front and rear direction of the two teams centering on the upper part of the ear, and it seems that the damaged part was not towing, but it was well clear by strong force. Otherwise, the front part of the vehicle involved in the accident was a relatively clean condition, except for the cases where there is a string, and the height of the front part of the vehicle involved in the accident from the leth day to the bottom of the distribution period is about 22 to 40cm, and the panel (from the lethm to 9 to 13cm) and the leth day protection period is installed in the horizontal plane toward the front part.

The location where the blood trace was found at the above accident point and the body of Nonparty 1 was found was around 18.5m. However, the speed of the accident train is about 90km, and where the person sitting or sitting on the vehicle is shocked, about 50 meters away from the moving direction of the engine in accordance with the sports law, and the distance of movement is considerably decreased if most of the body is in contact with the ground.

According to the above facts, the body of Non-party 1 is found to have been cut off by the front side of the panel of the vehicle involved in the accident and suffered the accident of this case. The body of Non-party 1 is found to have been cut off the body on the outer side of the iron and has been or has been cut down on the right side of the body.

B. Furthermore, in light of the facts as to the plaintiffs' assertion that the non-party 1 had an obligation to pay the insurance proceeds for death in accordance with the insurance policy since the non-party 1 died due to an accident caused by a traffic accident, the defendants are obligated to pay the insurance proceeds for death in accordance with the insurance policy, it is insufficient to conclude that the non-party 1 had reached the accident of this case with an active intention to commit suicide. However, at least, it is sufficient to evaluate the possibility that the non-party 1 could easily die at the time of the accident of this case, even though the non-party 1 was aware of the possibility that the accident of this case might easily die due to the accident of this case, because the non-party 1 had an accident of this case, which is one of the reasons for exemption from the payment of the insurance proceeds, constitutes a case where the "the insured intentionally damages himself", which is an element of the insurance accident, and thus, it is rejected.

2. However, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

In the ordinary insurance terms and conditions of an insurance contract, the insurer is responsible to prove the facts constituting the above reasons for exemption in order to be exempted from liability to pay the insurance proceeds if the insured has intentionally damaged the insured's himself/herself. In this case, the existence of objective physical evidence, such as a note stating his/her intention to commit suicide, or the reasonable doubt about the possibility of not committing suicide in ordinary sense should be proved (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da12495, Jan. 30, 2001).

In this case, there is no witness in the situation before and after the accident in the record, and there is no evidence that Nonparty 1 had a motive to commit suicide, but it is hard to find that the fact relevance recognized by the court below is sufficient to recognize that the insured, one of the reasons for exemption from the payment of the insurance proceeds, is "the case where the insured," as one of the reasons for exemption from the payment of the insurance proceeds, is "the case where the insured," because it is concluded that the accident in this case, even though Nonparty 1 was aware of the possibility that the accident in this case may easily with others, could cause the suicide in ordinary people's common sense, or that it constitutes "the case where the insured, one of the reasons for exemption from the payment of the insurance proceeds, has intentionally impaired himself."

In addition, according to the records, Nonparty 1 set up a wall and a protection network around the middle school, set up in the middle school, set up the house, cut up the house, and returned to the house in which it was difficult to see, due to the nature of usual work, he was frightened, and he was frighted in the previous work, and he was frighted at the previous work, and there was no problem due to women or money relations, and there was no special problem due to it, although it was difficult to frighten alone, even though it was difficult to fright alone, because the main part and the number of the accident site were in the vicinity of the accident site, it is difficult to find out the possibility that Nonparty 1 was frighted without permission due to negligence at the boundary of the accident site because the protection network at the time of the accident site was cut, and there was no possibility that Nonparty 1 could have taken part in the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident, and there was no possibility to fright the accident at the time of the accident.

Nevertheless, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the exemption from the payment of insurance proceeds, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the exemption from the payment of insurance proceeds, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, solely on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

Since the part of the grounds of appeal pointing this out is with merit, the judgment of the court below cannot be reversed without examining the remaining grounds of appeal.

3. Scope of dissatisfaction.

According to the statement in the petition of appeal, among the judgment of the court below that rejected all of the claims of this case, the plaintiffs are dissatisfied with the remaining part of the judgment of the court below, excluding the claims of insurance money based on the non-distribution spectrum transport accident insurance contract

4. Therefore, among the judgment of the court below, the part against the plaintiffs as to the remaining part except the claim portion based on the non-dividend, spectrum, and traffic accident insurance contract for Defendant Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd. is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)