The case holding that it is against the principle of good faith to claim invalidation of an insurance contract on the ground that the insured was under 15 years of age when concluding the insurance contract in light of the circumstances of conclusion of the insurance contract

The case holding that even if an insurance contract was concluded at the time when the insured was less than 15 years old, it can be said that the insured would have been willing to renew the insurance contract with the same content on the date when the insured reaches 15 years of age without an insured incident, and further, if the head of a business office where the agent of the insurer is in the position of the insured is well aware that the insured is less than 15 years of age at the time, and the date of birth was stated retroactively and actively recommended the insured to correct it later, and that the insurance contract was concluded before the insured reaches 15 years of age, even if the insured died without correcting the date of birth after he reaches 15 years of age, the insurer cannot assert the invalidity of the insurance contract under the principle of good faith on the ground that the insured was concluded

Article 732 of the Commercial Act, Article 2 of the Civil Act

Korea Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Go-man et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

With respect to the death of Nonparty 1 on December 19, 196, the judgment confirming that there is no insurance obligation of the Plaintiff against the Defendants based on the insurance contract indicated in the separate sheet between the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties:

A. On August 16, 1995, the Plaintiff, a company running the insurance business, concluded an insurance contract with the Defendant 2, his mother, as indicated in the attached Table, with Nonparty 1 as the policyholder on August 16, 1995 (Defendant 7, 1980).

B. Under the above insurance contract, if Nonparty 1 paid 76,00 won monthly insurance premium from August 16, 1995 to August 16, 2015, the Plaintiff is entitled to pay 14,000,000 won (=10,000,000 x 4.2 ± 3) and 1,596,00 won (=76,000 x 21), and to pay 2,80,000,000 won (=2,000 x 2,000 x 2,000 x 2310,000) each year with a survivor’s pension.

C. However, on December 19, 1996, Nonparty 1 died due to addiction to the U.S. (LP) gas, which was used in heating water within the bath room of Jung-gu, Jung-gu, Incheon (number omitted), Jung-gu, Incheon, for the purpose of heating water.

D. Meanwhile, the Plaintiffs are legal successors as parents of Nonparty 1.

2. Determination:

According to the above facts, the plaintiff, the insurer of the insurance contract of this case, is the beneficiary at the time of the death of the insured, who is the insurer of the insurance contract of this case.

3. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

On the other hand, the plaintiff asserts that the insurance contract of this case is invalid because the non-party 1, who is the policyholder and the beneficiary at the time of entering into the insurance contract of this case, was less than 15 years of age, because it violates the provisions of Article 732 of the Commercial Act and Article 8 of the Clause of the Insurance Contract of this case (if the policyholder is less than 15 years of age, the contract becomes null and void and the insurance premium already paid shall be refunded).

On August 16, 1985, at the time of the conclusion of the instant insurance contract, Nonparty 1 was 14 years old and under 15 years old as of October, 1985. However, in full view of the written evidence No. 1, No. 1, No. 2-1, and No. 2-2 of the oral argument, Nonparty 2, the head of the Plaintiff’s business office in North Korea, was aware that Nonparty 1, an insurance solicitor of August 16, 1995, was 15 years old and was 15 years old, with the date of birth as of August 16, 1985 when Nonparty 1 entered the insurance contract and the date of birth was 15 years old and 15 years old and was corrected, Nonparty 1, who was 2, the head of the Plaintiff’s business office in North Korea, had no problem in the validity of the instant insurance contract, and it was found that Nonparty 1, who was 15 years old and did not subscribe to the insurance contract.

According to the above facts, even if the insurance contract of this case was concluded at the time when Nonparty 1 was under 15 years of age, it can be said that, without the occurrence of an insured incident, Nonparty 1 would have expressed an intention to re-enter the insurance contract of the same content on the date when Nonparty 1 reached 15 years of age. Furthermore, if Nonparty 2 was well aware that Nonparty 1, the agent of the Plaintiff, was under 15 years of age at the time, and actively recommended Nonparty 1 to write the date of birth retroactively and correct it later, the insurance contract of this case was concluded before Nonparty 1 reaches 15 years of age, even if Nonparty 1 died without correcting the date of birth after he reached 15 years of age, it shall be interpreted that the Plaintiff, the insurer, cannot assert the invalidity of the contract on the grounds that the insured was concluded before he reached 15 years of age under the principle of trust and good faith.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the insurance contract of this case is null and void on the ground that it is under 15 years of age at the time of conclusion of the insurance contract

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking confirmation that the plaintiff had no liability to pay insurance money to the defendants due to the death of the non-party 1 is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kang Yong-sung (Presiding Judge)