[1] The meaning of suicide under an insurance contract covering the death as an insured event, which is stipulated as the insurer's exemption from liability, and whether the occurrence of the death result is included in suicide in a case where the insured is unable to make free decisions due to mental illness, etc. (negative)

[2] The case affirming the court below's judgment which held that in case where the insured of an insurance contract died from cryptive loss of mind and body due to drinking, this constitutes a contingency accident, and thus constitutes a "recry" as stipulated under the insurance policy, and thus becomes a beneficiary of the death benefit

[3] Whether an insurance solicitor bears the duty of explanation on the requirements such as the insured's written consent in concluding an insurance contract which covers the death of another person as an insured event (affirmative), and whether the insurer is liable for damages under Article 102 (1) of the Insurance Business Act in a case where the insurance solicitor's failure to fulfill such duty of explanation becomes null and void (affirmative)

[4] The case holding that the insured's written consent is null and void due to the insured's invalidity of the insurance contract, and the insured's failure to receive the insurance proceeds is entirely attributable to the policyholder's responsible cause, and there is no causation with the loss of damage even if the insurance solicitor's breach of duty of care for the policyholder

[1] In light of the legislative intent of Articles 659(1) and 732-2 of the Commercial Act, where suicide is stipulated as the insurer's reason for exemption in an insurance contract which covers the death as an insured event, the suicide refers to an act of causing death by intentionally cutting his/her own life for its purpose and intentionally cutting his/her own life for the purpose, and does not include the case where the insured caused death in a situation where free decision-making is impossible due to mental illness, etc. In addition, if the direct cause of death occurred due to external factor, the insured event constitutes an accident as an accident which is not intentional by the insured.

[2] In a case where the insured of an insurance contract was unable to make a free decision due to a military register name, which is a military register, due to drinking in marine, and where he was unable to make a free decision, the case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that the insured constitutes a "exclosion" as one of the accidents under the insurance terms and conditions, and thus becomes eligible for a death benefit.

[3] In concluding an insurance contract which covers the death of another person as an insured event, an insurance solicitor has the duty of care to provide the policyholder with an opportunity to satisfy the requirements, such as the insured's written consent, and to take measures to establish an effective insurance contract by providing the policyholder with an opportunity to satisfy the requirements. If the insurance solicitor becomes null and void due to a defect in the above requirements, and as a result, the insurance policyholder becomes unable to receive the insurance proceeds despite the occurrence of the insured events, the insurer is liable to compensate the policyholder for damages equivalent to the insurance proceeds pursuant to Article 102 (1) of the Insurance Business Act.

[4] The case holding that the insured's written consent is null and void due to the insured's invalidity of an insurance contract, and the insured's failure to receive the insurance proceeds is entirely attributable to the policyholder's responsible cause, and the insurance solicitor's failure to perform his/her duty of care for the policyholder does not have causation with the loss.

[1] Articles 659(1) and 732-2 of the Commercial Act / [2] Articles 659(1) and 732-2 of the Commercial Act / [3] Article 102(1) of the Insurance Business Act / [4] Article 102(1) of the Insurance Business Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2005Da49713 decided Mar. 10, 2006 (Gong2006Sang, 610) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 2000Da11065, 11072 decided Apr. 26, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 1225), Supreme Court Decision 2003Da49580 decided May 14, 2004, Supreme Court Decision 2003Da60259 decided Apr. 27, 2006 (Gong2006Sang, 883)

Plaintiff 1 and two others (Law Firm Lee, Attorneys Kim Tae-tae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. and two others (Law Firm Sejong & 4 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2006Na74497 decided September 21, 2007

The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant interesting life insurance company is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The remaining Defendants’ appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal against the dismissed appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant Samsung Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. and Defendant Samsung Property Insurance Co., Ltd.

In light of the legislative intent of Articles 659(1) and 732-2 of the Commercial Act, where suicide is stipulated as an exemption of the insurer’s liability in an insurance contract which covers death as an insured event, the suicide refers to an act of intentionally cutting one’s own life for its purpose and causing the result of death by intentionally cutting it, and does not include the case where the insured has caused the result of death in a situation where it is impossible for the free decision-making due to mental illness, etc. In addition, if the act of directly causing the result of death was caused by external factors, the insured event constitutes an accident which is not intentional by the insured and constitutes an accident (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da49713, Mar. 10, 206, etc.).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, based on the facts established by the court below, the court below determined that the deceased non-party 1 (hereinafter "the deceased") who is the insured of each insurance contract of this case as an insured person of this case (hereinafter "the insured") is entitled to receive a death benefit in Vietnam as an accident under the insurance contract of this case, because he was unable to make free decision-making due to the name of military register, which is a military register, due to drinking in booming in Vietnam, in a state where he was unable to make a free decision-making. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is justified in light of the above legal principles and records.

This part of the grounds of appeal is nothing more than disputing the validity of the application of the relevant legal principles on the premise that the court below erred in its fact-finding which belongs to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below, and it does not constitute a legitimate ground of appeal, and contrary to this part of the judgment below, there is no violation of the rules of evidence and misapprehension of the legal principles as

2. As to the ground of appeal by Defendant Heung Korea Life Insurance Corporation

The court below held that the above defendant is liable for damages equivalent to the above insurance money pursuant to Article 102 (1) of the Insurance Business Act inasmuch as the above defendant neglected his duty of care to enter into the insurance contract with the deceased's written consent by explaining to the plaintiff 1 of the above deceased's wife, who is the policyholder and beneficiary that the above defendant should obtain the written consent of the deceased so that the above defendant can effectively establish the above insurance contract at the time of entering into the insurance contract, and as long as the above plaintiff neglected his duty of care to enter into the insurance contract with the deceased's written consent, the above plaintiff neglected to act in lieu of the deceased's signature on the part of the insured's consent column, thereby causing damages not paid the above insurance money. However, the court below held that the above defendant's liability ratio was limited to 50% of the above defendant's liability ratio, considering the error that the above plaintiff was negligent by the plaintiff

However, in entering into an insurance contract which covers the death of another person, an insurance solicitor has the duty of care to take measures to enable the policyholder to establish an effective insurance contract by providing the policyholder with an opportunity to meet the requirements such as the written consent of the insured, and if an insurance solicitor becomes null and void due to a defect in the above requirements without such explanation, and as a result, the policyholder is not entitled to receive the insurance proceeds despite the occurrence of the insurance accident, the insurer shall be liable to compensate the policyholder for the loss equivalent to the insurance proceeds pursuant to Article 102(1) of the Insurance Business Act. However, in cases where the insurance contract becomes null and void due to the lack of the above written consent requirements and there is no causation between the insurance solicitor and the loss caused by the invalidity of the insurance contract, the insurer shall not be held liable for damages (see Supreme Court Decisions 200Da1065, 1072, Apr. 26, 2002; 2003Da46365, May 14, 2004, etc.).

However, even if the Plaintiff’s signature was based on the facts that it was difficult for the Plaintiff to enter into the above insurance contract with Nonparty 2 to know that it was an insurance solicitor’s non-party to the above insurance contract without permission, it would be difficult for the Plaintiff to enter into the insurance contract with Nonparty 2 to know that it was an insurance solicitor’s non-party to the above insurance contract without permission, and it would be difficult for the Plaintiff to enter into the insurance contract with the above non-party 2 to know that it was an insurance solicitor’s non-party 2’s non-party to enter into the above insurance contract with the non-party 5, and that it was a party to the insurance contract with the non-party 2’s non-party’s non-party’s non-party-party-2’s non-party-party-party-2’s non-party-party-appellant’s non-party-party-2’s non-party-party-party’s non-party-party-appellant’s non-party-party-2’s non-party-party-party-party-2’s consent to the above insurance contract.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which partially accepted the claim for damages against the above defendant on the premise that there was a negligence in violation of the duty to explain on the part of the above defendant with respect to the invalidity of the insurance contract of this case, or that there was a negligence in violation of the duty of care which caused the loss to be caused by the invalidity of the above insurance contract, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article

The above defendant's ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remainder of the grounds of appeal by Defendant Heung Korea Life Insurance Co., Ltd., the part of the judgment below against the above Defendant is reversed and remanded to the court below. The remaining Defendants’ 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 Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)