[1] Whether an accident insurance for another person who does not coincide with the insured and the beneficiary is permitted (affirmative)

[2] In a case where an accident insurance for another person designates a beneficiary abstract or flexiblely, the validity of the act of designation (the validity of qualification)

[3] In a case where a policyholder stated "heir" as "heir" as the beneficiary of an accident insurance, the case holding that the act of designating the beneficiary is valid on the ground that it can be deemed that the beneficiary was the beneficiary at the time of injury if he dies as a result of his injury

[1] According to Article 639 of the Commercial Act, a policyholder may enter into an insurance contract for a specific or unspecified person, and Article 733 of the Commercial Act on the designation or change of a beneficiary in life insurance for a third person applies mutatis mutandis to an accident insurance under Article 739 of the Commercial Act. Thus, a policyholder who enters into an injury insurance contract may freely designate a specific or unspecified third person as a beneficiary. In addition, in the case of a fixed-type accident insurance, even if the policyholder’s designation as a beneficiary does not coincide with the insured as a result of the designation of a beneficiary, the designation of a beneficiary cannot be invalidated solely for such reason.

[2] In an accident insurance for others, a beneficiary of an accident insurance for others does not necessarily have to be specified at the time of the act of designation, but can be specified at the time of the occurrence of an accident. As such, the policyholder can designate a specific person through name, etc. as a beneficiary of an accident as a beneficiary of an accident, as well as may designate an unspecified person as a beneficiary of an accident through the status or qualification of a person who is entitled to make a profit, such as “spouse” or “heir” as a beneficiary of an accident. If the beneficiary is designated abstract or flexiblely as the latter, such designation is valid

[3] In a case where a policyholder stated "heir" as "heir" as the beneficiary of an accident insurance, the case holding that the act of designating the beneficiary is valid on the ground that it can be deemed that the beneficiary was the beneficiary at the time of injury if he dies as a result of his injury.

[1] Articles 639, 733, and 739 of the Commercial Act / [2] Articles 639, 733, and 739 of the Commercial Act / [3] Articles 639, 733, and 739 of the Commercial Act; Article 105 of the Civil Act

Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Head of Law Firm, Attorneys Kimcheon-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Defendant

Gwangju District Court Decision 2004Na11854 Decided August 26, 2005

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Determination on the permission of an accident insurance for another person

According to Article 639 of the Commercial Act, which is a general provision applicable to both life insurance and non-life insurance, a policyholder may enter into an insurance contract for a specific or unspecified third party. Article 733 of the Commercial Act on designation or change of an beneficiary in life insurance for a third party applies mutatis mutandis to an accident insurance pursuant to Article 739 of the Commercial Act. Thus, a policyholder who enters into an injury insurance contract may freely designate a specific or unspecified third party as a beneficiary.

In addition, in the case of a fixed-amount accident insurance, even if the policyholder designates the beneficiary as a result of the designation of the insured and the beneficiary, the designation of the beneficiary cannot be invalidated solely for that reason, unless there are special circumstances.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to accident insurance for others as alleged in the grounds of appeal

2. Determination on the validity and interpretation of the act of designating an beneficiary

In accident insurance for others, a beneficiary of an accident insurance for others does not necessarily have to be specified at the time of the act of designation, but can be specified at the time of the occurrence of an accident. As such, a policyholder may designate a specific person as a beneficiary through name, etc., and an unspecified person may be designated as a beneficiary of an accident through status or qualification of a person who is entitled to receive insurance proceeds, such as “spouse” or “he/she” as a beneficiary of an accident. If a beneficiary is designated abstract or flexiblely, such designation can be valid if the policyholder’s intention can be reasonably inferred in the event

In the same purport, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the act of designating the beneficiary was null and void on the ground that the non-party, who is the policyholder, stated "he heir" in the beneficiary column in the event of injury to the beneficiary, was the intent to designate the defendant and the designated person who would have been his heir if he died as the result of the injury if he suffered the injury. In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity or interpretation of the act of designating the beneficiary, as alleged in the

3. 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 Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)