Whether the insurer is liable to pay insurance if an insured event occurred before the commencement of liability stipulated in the insurance contract even if the insurance contract is valid under the proviso of Article 644 of the Commercial Act (negative)

Article 644 of the Commercial Act provides that "if an insured incident has already occurred at the time of the insurance contract, or is not likely to occur, such contract shall be null and void: Provided, That this shall not apply in cases where both parties and the insured have been unaware of it." However, even in cases where the above proviso is applicable because both parties to the insurance contract and the insured have acted in good faith, it can only be acknowledged that the insurer is liable to pay the insurance proceeds for the insured event that occurred after the commencement of liability stipulated in the insurance contract, and if the insured event occurred prior to the commencement of liability stipulated in the insurance contract, this constitutes a

Article 644 of the Commercial Act

Transfer Intervention (Law Firm Rate, Law Office, Attorney Go Il-ok et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Young Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kang Jae-won, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2001Na1048 delivered on March 21, 2002

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, with regard to the plaintiff's assertion that the insurance accident of this case occurred within the insurance period, after compiling the evidence, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning. The ground for payment of disability benefits or disability pension of this case is "the insured's condition of disability during the insurance period" (the insured's condition of disability during the first insurance period is not "the insured's condition of disability during the first insurance period"). The insurance period of the insurance contract of this case was from March 17, 1997 when the first insurance premium was paid, and the burden of proving that the insurance accident occurred after March 17, 1997 when the claimant claimed the insurance benefit of this case was the beneficiary. Thus, the court below rejected the judgment of the court below that there was no other error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the ground for appeal, or there was no other error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the ground for appeal of this case since March 17, 1997.

2. As to the fourth ground for appeal

Article 644 of the Commercial Act provides that "if an insured incident has already occurred at the time of the insurance contract, or is not likely to occur, such contract shall be null and void: Provided, That this shall not apply in cases where both parties and the insured have been unaware of it, as both parties to the insurance contract and the insured have acted in good faith, and thus the above proviso applies, it is only possible to recognize that the insurer is liable to pay the insurance proceeds for the insured event that occurred after the commencement of liability stipulated in the insurance contract, and if the insured event occurred prior to the commencement of liability stipulated in the insurance contract, it is a risk that the insurer has not taken over

Although the judgment of the court below is somewhat insufficient in its reasoning, it is justified in rejecting the plaintiff's assertion that the obligation to pay insurance money due to the above disability should be recognized pursuant to the proviso of Article 644 of the Commercial Act, since the original house and the non-party 1 did not know that disability occurred to the non-party 1 at the time of entering into the insurance contract of this case even though the non-party 1's disability occurred prior to the insurance period of this case, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on Article 644 of the Commercial Act, which affected the conclusion

3. Conclusion

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 on the bench.

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)