[1] Whether an insurer may terminate an insurance contract on the ground of a breach of duty of disclosure even in cases where there is no causation between the breach of duty of disclosure and the occurrence of an insurance accident (affirmative), and in such a case, whether the liability to pay the insurance amount is extinguished (negative in principle

[2] The case holding that the insurer may terminate the insurance contract on the ground of a breach of duty of disclosure, although the causal relationship between the insured's breach of duty of disclosure and the insured's occurrence of leuklogal disease is not acknowledged

[1] Article 651 of the Commercial Code provides that "the termination of the insurance contract due to the violation of the duty of disclosure does not require causation between the fact of the violation of the duty of disclosure and the occurrence of the insurance accident, and Article 655 of the Commercial Code provides that "the claim for the amount of insurance proceeds when the contract is terminated due to the violation of the duty of disclosure, etc." Thus, not only the main text but also the proviso should be interpreted as the provision on the existence of the right to claim the amount of insurance proceeds. If the policyholder or the insured has not been notified or falsely due to intentional or gross negligence at the time of the insurance contract, the requirement for breach of the duty of disclosure is satisfied, while the causal relationship between the fact of the breach of the duty of disclosure and the occurrence of the insurance accident is determined only when the insurance accident occurred". Thus, even if the insurer is liable for the payment of the amount of insurance proceeds under the proviso of Article 655 of the Commercial Code, it is reasonable to interpret the causal relationship between the insurer's breach and the duty of disclosure can not be terminated after the termination of the insurance contract.

[2] The case holding that the insurer may terminate the insurance contract on the ground of a breach of duty of disclosure, although the causal relationship between the insured's breach of duty of disclosure and the insured's occurrence of leukosiss is not recognized

[1] Articles 651 and 655 of the Commercial Act / [2] Articles 651 and 655 of the Commercial Act

Plaintiff (Law Firm Jin Law, Attorney Lee Jae-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Song-tae, Attorney Appointment-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2009Na94744 decided February 12, 2010

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

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the facts of the judgment, and found that the non-party, after having acknowledged the facts of the judgment, was diagnosed, administered, or treated with high blood pressure, the non-party violated the duty of disclosure due to failure to notify the defendant intentionally or by gross negligence, because the defendant, the insurer, measured the occurrence of the insurance accident and the commencement rate of liability due to the occurrence of the occurrence of the insurance accident, or made a standard for determining whether to enter into the insurance contract or the contents of the insurance contract of this case, such as the addition of insurance premium or special exemption clause, and the defendant's questioning in writing, and although the plaintiff and the non-party were diagnosed and administered with high blood pressure during the latest five years, they stated that there was no such fact in the insurance subscription form. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles, etc.

2. The main text of Article 651 of the Commercial Act provides, “If the policyholder or the insured has failed to notify material facts intentionally or by gross negligence at the time of the insurance contract, or has notified the policyholder or the insured of false facts, the insurer may terminate the contract only within one month from the date of becoming aware of such fact and within three years from the date of conclusion of the contract,” and Article 655 of the same Act provides, “if the insurer has terminated the contract under the provisions of Articles 650, 651, 652 and 653 even after the occurrence of the insurance accident, the insurer is not liable for paying the insured amount and may demand the return of the insured amount already paid. However, this shall not apply where it is proved that the occurrence of the insurance accident was not affected

Article 651 of the Commercial Act provides that the termination of an insurance contract due to breach of duty of disclosure and the occurrence of an insurance accident does not require causation between the fact of violation of duty of disclosure and the occurrence of an insurance accident. Article 655 of the Commercial Act provides for the claim for insurance amount when the contract is terminated due to breach of duty of disclosure, etc. Thus, not only the main text but also the proviso can be interpreted as the provision on the existence of the claim for insurance amount. If the policyholder or the insured has not been informed of important matters intentionally or by gross negligence at the time of the insurance contract, the requirement for breach of duty of disclosure is satisfied. On the other hand, the causal relationship between the fact of violation of duty of disclosure and the occurrence of an insurance accident is determined only at the time of the occurrence of the insurance accident. Thus, even if the insurer is liable for the payment of the insurance amount under the proviso of Article 655 of the Commercial Act, it is reasonable to interpret that the insurance contract can be terminated for reasons of breach of duty of disclosure and termination, regardless of the occurrence of the insurance accident after termination of the insurance contract.

For reasons indicated in its holding, the court below held that even if the causal relationship between the plaintiff and the non-party's breach of duty to notify and the non-party's occurrence of the insurance accident is not acknowledged, the defendant may terminate the insurance contract of this case on the ground of the non-party's breach of duty to notify the plaintiff and the non-party's violation of the duty

In addition, Supreme Court Decision 93Da52082 delivered on February 25, 1994, and Supreme Court Decision 2000Da40353 delivered on January 5, 2001, which ruled by the Plaintiff, are inappropriate to invoke the effect of termination of the insurance contract by pointing out the existence of the claim for insurance amount due to the occurrence of an insured incident, and pointing out the same differently from the instant case.

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 Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)