Whether a beneficiary in group insurance is entitled to enter into an insurance contract with himself/herself (affirmative)

In the case of group insurance, since there are no specific provisions in the relevant laws such as the Commercial Act with regard to the designation of the beneficiary, the policyholder may enter into an insurance contract for the other party with the insured who is a member of the organization as the beneficiary of the insurance, and the policyholder may enter into an insurance contract for the other party with his own beneficiary of the insurance as the beneficiary of the group insurance. Therefore, the designation of the beneficiary as the policyholder is contrary to the nature of group insurance.

Article 735-3 of the Commercial Act

Plaintiff

[Defendant-Appellee] Seoul Special Metropolitan City

Daegu District Court Decision 98Na3274 delivered on November 11, 1998

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. In the case of group insurance, since there are no specific provisions in the relevant laws such as the Commercial Act with regard to the designation of the beneficiary, the policyholder may enter into an insurance contract for another person with the insured who is a member of the organization as the beneficiary of the insurance, and the policyholder may enter into an insurance contract for one's own behalf with the beneficiary of the insurance. Since it is a group insurance, it cannot be said that the designation of the beneficiary as the policyholder is against the nature of group insurance.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant company engaged in manufacturing work, such as fire doors and steel structure, based on macro evidence. On July 26, 1995, when its employees suffer occupational accidents, the non-party company entered into an insurance contract with the defendant company including the non-party 1, and the insurance period from July 26, 1995 to July 26, 200 with the defendant company's employees, a policyholder at the time of the insured's survival and death. The above insurance contract was just for the defendant company to pay a certain amount of insurance premium every month, but the non-party company's employees who are the insured company and the non-party 1, the beneficiary company paid the insurance premium to the non-party company and the non-party 1, the non-party company paid the principal to the non-party company, and the non-party 1, the non-party company's heir and the non-party 1, the non-party company's non-party 1, who was designated as the beneficiary company's employees.

2. Furthermore, the court below rejected the claim that the defendant company is obligated to pay the amount equivalent to the insurance money of this case paid by the non-party 1 to the above non-party 1's heir upon the death of the above non-party 1, and that the defendant company determined the above non-party 1 in entering into the insurance contract of this case as the insured, but did not confirm the above non-party 1's intention with respect to the designation of the beneficiary, the above non-party 1 was designated as the defendant company or the above non-party 1 was decided to the above non-party 1 as the above non-party 1 or his heir, and that the above non-party 1 was decided to the above non-party 1 as the above non-party 1 or his heir. Thus, the defendant company obtained the consent of the conclusion of the insurance contract of this case. Thus, the defendant company is obligated to pay the amount equivalent to the insurance money of this case paid by the non-party

However, even according to the facts found by the court below, the insurance contract of this case is a contract under which the non-party company pays the insurance money specified in the insurance policy to the defendant company as a beneficiary of the insurance policy in the event that an insured event occurs, such as death or injury of the employee of the defendant company who is the insured during the insurance period, and the non-party company pays the principal of the insurance premium paid to the defendant company if the insured event does not occur by the maturity of the insurance period. It is not limited to death or injury caused by occupational accidents. The defendant company's employees agree to the conclusion of the insurance contract of this case with the intent of allowing the defendant company to receive and hold the insurance money if the insured event occurs not only because the insurance accident occurred due to occupational accidents but also because the defendant company's employees are aware of the fact that the defendant company's employees agreed to the insurance contract of this case with the intent of allowing the beneficiary company to receive and hold the insurance money in accordance with the contents of the insurance accident, barring special circumstances where the insured company and its employees do not have any other agreement between the defendant company and its employees.

Therefore, the court below should not conclude that the defendant company is able to hold the insurance proceeds of this case as a matter of course before considering whether the defendant company obtained the above consent of the employees of the defendant company including the above non-party 1 and the employees of the defendant company as the beneficiary of the insurance contract of this case and considering the circumstances and purport of the employees' consent to the conclusion of the insurance contract of this case, and in case where the insured company was subject to death or injury other than occupational accidents within the insurance period, the defendant company's intention to receive and hold the insurance proceeds of this case cannot be concluded to be able to hold the insurance proceeds of this case as a matter of course, and rather, it is reasonable to pay the insurance proceeds of this case to the insured or their bereaved family members, without examining the above points, unless there is any evidence supporting the plaintiff's assertion, and it is erroneous in the misapprehension of the party's intent and its error that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. 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 Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)