[1] In a case where a decision to transfer an insurance contract under the former Act on the Structural Improvement of the Financial Industry is made, whether all the insurance contracts that continue to exist with the previous insurance company are subject to transfer (negative), and the standard for determining whether they are subject to transfer

[2] The case holding that an insurance contract is not included in the subject of transfer to the acquiring financial institution in light of the language and equity of the written decision for contract transfer

[1] In light of the provisions on the transfer of contracts under the former Act on the Structural Improvement of the Financial Industry (amended by Act No. 5257, Jan. 13, 1997; Act No. 5549, Sep. 14, 1998; Act No. 6178, Jan. 21, 2000), there is no express provision as to whether the transfer of contracts only refers to the transfer of all rights and obligations or include the transfer of all rights and obligations. However, as seen in Article 14-2 (1) of the former Act on the Structural Improvement of the Financial Industry (amended by Act No. 6178, Jan. 21, 200; Act No. 6178, Jan. 21, 2000; Act No. 4 of the Act on the Structural Improvement of the Financial Industry (amended by Act No. 6178, Sep. 14, 1998; Act No. 6178, Jan. 21, 2000).

[2] The case holding that an insurance contract is not included in the subject of transfer to the acquiring financial institution in light of the language and equality of the written decision for contract transfer

[1] Articles 14 and 14-2 of the former Act on the Structural Improvement of the Financial Industry (amended by Act No. 6178 of Jan. 21, 2000) / [2] Articles 14 and 14-2 of the former Act on the Structural Improvement of the Financial Industry (amended by Act No. 6178 of Jan. 21, 200)

[1] Supreme Court Order 2001Da144 dated April 29, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 1475)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Dong-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

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

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Na53556 delivered on March 14, 2002

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

1. Summary of the judgment below

원심이 인용한 제1심은, 원고가 1995. 12. 29. 및 1996. 11. 20.에 파산전 국제생명보험 주식회사(1999. 1. 6. 11:00경 파산선고되었다, 이하 '국제생명'이라고 한다)와 사이에 보험기간이 끝날 때까지 피보험자가 생존할 경우 적금금액의 전액을 '만기수령액'으로 지급받기로 하는 내용의 이 사건 각 보험계약을 체결한 사실, 그런데 국제생명의 영업소장 소외인이 1997. 5. 29.부터 1998. 7. 27.경까지 원고의 명의로 된 해약환급금청구 및 영수증을 위조, 원고가 이 사건 각 보험계약을 해약한 것처럼 가장하여 국제생명의 전산기록매체에 해약된 것으로 처리되도록 한 다음 해약환급금 전액을 지급받아 가로챈 사실, 한편 금융감독위원회(이하 '금감위'라고 한다)는 부채초과로 인하여 국제생명의 정상적인 경영 및 경영개선이 어렵다고 판단하고, 금융산업의구조개선에관한법률(이하 '구조개선법'이라고 한다) 제14조 제2항 제3호 에 근거하여 1998. 8. 21. 11:00를 기준으로 국제생명이 체결한 보험계약과 자산 등을 피고에게 이전하는 내용의 계약이전결정을 하였는데, 그 계약이전결정서(이하 '결정서'라고 한다) 제3조 및 제4조에서 '이전되는 계약과 이전되지 아니하는 계약'을 규정한 사실을 인정한 다음, 피고가 국제생명의 보험계약을 인수하였음을 전제로 이 사건 각 보험계약에서 정한 보험금의 지급을 구하는 원고의 이 사건 청구 부분에 대하여 구조개선법 제14조 및 제14조의2 의 규정과 금감위의 이 사건 계약이전결정의 내용, 즉 국제생명의 전산기록매체에 남아 있고 국제생명에 보험계약청약서 등이 존재하는 계약을 원칙적으로 이전하는 것으로 하되, 직원의 착오에 의하여 전산기록매체에서 누락되거나 보험계약자가 보험증권 등 계약체결 사실에 관한 증빙서류를 가지고 있는 경우에는 기준일부터 이전대상에 포함되고, 그와 같은 형식을 갖추었다 하더라도 강행법규에 저촉되는 등으로 유효한 계약이라고 볼 수 없는 경우에는 이전대상 계약에 포함되지 아니한다고 결정하고 있는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 결국 계약이전결정의 대상에 포함되는 계약에 해당하는지 여부는 계약이전 기준일 당시 국제생명에 대한 관계에서 그 보험계약이 유효하게 존속하고 있어 국제생명에 보험계약의 내용에 따른 보험급여를 청구할 수 있는지 여부에 달려 있다 할 것이고, 비록 소외인이 원고의 이름을 위조하여 사건 각 보험계약을 임의로 해약하고 그 해약환급금을 수령하였다고 하더라도 원고와 국제생명과의 사이에서 이 사건 각 보험계약이 해지되었다고 볼 수는 없고 여전히 존속하고 있었다고 할 것이므로, 원고의 국제생명에 대한 이 사건 각 보험계약은 피고에게 승계되었다고 보아야 한다고 판단하여, 이 사건 각 보험계약에 따른 보험금 청구에 한하여 원고의 청구를 받아들였다.

2. Judgment of the Supreme Court

A. However, the court below's acceptance of the plaintiff's claim on the part above is difficult to accept for the following reasons, considering that the court below's transfer of the part above to the defendant in any case, which is an insurance contract which is effective and continued in relation to international life.

B. First, in light of the provisions on the transfer of contracts under the former Structural Improvement Act (amended by Act No. 5257 of Jan. 13, 1997, which was amended by Act No. 5549 of Sep. 14, 1998, and Article 6178 of Jan. 21, 200), there is no express provision on whether the transfer of contracts means only the transfer of contracts and rights and obligations or includes the transfer of contracts and rights and obligations. However, as seen in Article 14-2(1) of the former Structural Improvement Act (amended by Act No. 6178 of Jan. 21, 200, even if the decision on the transfer of contracts has been made, only "the rights and obligations of insolvent financial institutions pursuant to the contract included in the decision" is succeeded to the acquiring financial institution, and Article 14-2(1) of the same Act (amended by Act No. 6178 of Jan. 21, 200).

C. Therefore, whether an international insurance contract is transferred to the Defendant shall be determined in accordance with the above written determination. If such provision is unclear, the determination should be made by comprehensively taking into account the purport and circumstance of the above decision for transfer, the equitable outcome between the parties involved in the transferred contract, etc. Even though Article 3(1) of the above written determination provides that “the insurance contract for life (including invalid due to payment of premiums) as of the base date and the rights and obligations based thereon shall be transferred to the Defendant.” However, Article 3(4) of the above written determination provides that “the insurance contract to be transferred to the Defendant shall be based on the contents recorded in the international recording medium for life, but the transferred insurance contract shall be included in the transferred insurance contract if it is confirmed that it is a contract that is not recorded in the electronic recording medium for life at the time of transfer.” Article 4 provides that “The Defendant shall be deemed to have breached the obligation to preserve the transferred international insurance contract within the effective period of time for entry into an international recording medium for life insurance contract as of the base date, and thus, shall be excluded from the assessed value of the transferred insurance contract.”

D. Nevertheless, the court below acknowledged the fact that each of the insurance contracts of this case was recorded as not being kept on the electronic recording media at the time of the transfer date, but without examining whether the existence of each of the insurance contracts of this case was confirmed within six months from the completion date of the above settlement between international bio-resources and the defendant (In light of the records, the above settlement was made at the end of November 1998, and it seems that the plaintiff first notified the defendant of the existence of each of the insurance contracts of this case. Thus, each of the insurance contracts of this case was not transferred to the defendant, and that each of the insurance contracts of this case is an insurance contract with valid international bio-resources at the time of the transfer date, and that the plaintiff's claim of this case is easily accepted and accepted to the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by seriously interpreting the scope of the insurance contracts subject to transfer as stipulated in the above decision on transfer. The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)