beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
3. Total costs of litigation are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiffs asserted that the deceased C (hereinafter "the deceased") committed suicide while it was unable to make a free decision due to depression, etc., and therefore, the defendant asserts that the plaintiffs are obliged to pay 75 million won of the general injury, death, and death benefit as stipulated in the insurance contract in the insurance contract in this case to the plaintiffs in proportion to their inheritance shares.
In this regard, the defendant asserts that since the deceased did not commit suicide in a state of free decision-making, it does not suffer bodily injury due to an unexpected accident, it cannot accept the plaintiffs' claim for the payment of insurance money.
B. In light of the legislative intent of Articles 659(1) and 732-2 of the Commercial Act of the judgment, where suicide is stipulated as the reason for exemption of the insurer in an insurance contract which covers death as an insured event, the suicide refers to an act which intentionally cut his/her own life for the purpose of the insurance contract and intentionally cut his/her own life for the purpose of causing the result of death, and does not include the case where the insured caused the result of death in a situation where it is impossible for the free decision-making due to mental illness, etc. In addition, if the direct cause of the death occurred due to external factor, the insured accident constitutes an accident that is not intentional by the insured and constitutes an accident.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da76696, Aug. 21, 2008). In addition, the insurance contract of this case defines the term “accident” as “injury” to the same purport, and intentionally damages the insured.