[1] The validity of an insurance contract covering another person's death which was concluded without the written consent of the insured (negative)

[2] Whether a person who, without the written consent of the insured, concluded an insurance contract which covers the death of another person as an insured accident does not violate the good faith principle or the good faith principle to assert the invalidity of the insurance contract (negative)

[1] An insurance contract which covers the death of another person as an insured event shall be null and void without obtaining the consent of the other person in writing at the time of concluding the insurance contract.

[2] Requesting written consent of the insured in an insurance contract covering the death of another person as an insured accident is to eliminate the risk of gambling insurance, the risk of murder of the insured, and the risk of infringement of public order and good morals, and thus, it cannot be deemed that a person who entered into an insurance contract covering the death of another person as an insured accident without the written consent of the insured does not violate the good faith principle or the principle

[1] [2] Article 731 of the Commercial Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Maritime Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Dong-ju, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Choi Ho-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

On September 10, 1996 between the plaintiff and the defendant, it is confirmed that there is no insurance obligation of the plaintiff under the diversity insurance contract and the diversity insurance contract between the plaintiff and the defendant.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are either in dispute between the parties or in combination with the whole purport of the arguments cited below, and there is no counter-proof.

A. On September 10, 1996, the Defendant received a recommendation from the Nonparty, the president of the Plaintiff Company, the Plaintiff Company and the policyholder, the insured, the Nonparty 1, his third village, the beneficiary, the Defendant, the insurance policy amount of KRW 20,000 per day of death or aftermath disability, KRW 20,00 per day of temporary living expenses, and KRW 70,40 per month of basic contract insurance premium, KRW 78,540 per month of insurance premium, KRW 8,540, the insurance period from September 10, 1996 to September 10, 2006, and KRW 20,00 per day of temporary living expenses, and KRW 78,540 of insurance premium under a special contract for basic contract, KRW 70,00 per month of insurance premium, and KRW 8,140 of insurance premium for temporary living expenses and medical expenses (hereinafter referred to as the “insurance contract of this case”). The first insurance premium was concluded on September 10, 1996.

B. The above paper and the defendant prepared the application form of the insurance contract of this case and sent them to the Plaintiff company Gwangju branch, the above branch attached the above Non-party 1's personal seal impression to the insured Non-party 1, and sent them to each corresponding column with the seal impression of the insured. The above subscription form was sent to the above business office (the witness title).

C. Therefore, around September 23, 1996, the non-party Yang-American, who is an employee of the above place of business, supplemented the application form with the defendant and attached the certificate of the non-party 1's personal seal impression (Evidence A1) issued as of September 21, 1996. The defendant issued the non-party 1's name and seal in the corresponding column of the above application form, and at the time the defendant had five copies of the certificate of the non-party 1's personal seal impression (Evidence A 4's evidence No. 4 and No. 5, witness name).

D. At around 20:20 on October 12, 1996, the insurance period of the non-party 1, the non-party 1, when crossing a three-lane road on the 3-lane in the Yeongsan River, Seomjin-dong, Seomjin-dong, Seomjin-si, and the road where the two-lanes of the road are located on the breath of the breath of the non-party 2 driver's (vehicle number omitted), the non-party 1, who was faced with the left side of the vehicle (vehicle number omitted), was killed on the spot by facing other vehicles in the number number number number omitted that were followed again (Evidence No. 2, No. 8, No. 1, 3, No. 9, and No. 10).

2. The party's assertion and judgment of party members

A. Since the insurance contract of this case is an insurance contract which covers the death of another person as an insurance accident under Article 731 of the Commercial Act, it is null and void without obtaining the written consent of the other person at the time of concluding the insurance contract under Article 731 of the Commercial Act. Since the defendant concluded the insurance contract of this case with the consent of the above non-party 1, it is alleged that the insurance contract of this case is valid, it is not believed that the evidence No. 5 is consistent with the defendant's argument, but it is insufficient to recognize it only with the evidence No. 1, No. 4-2, No. 11, No. 2-1, and No. 2, and there is no other evidence. Rather, considering the whole purport of the testimony of the witness No. 1, No. 4-1, and No. 4-3, and the testimony of the witness No. 1, the defendant merely affixed the above non-party 1's name and seal on Sep. 10, 1996 at the time of concluding the insurance contract of this case.

B. In other words, the defendant, after entering into the insurance contract of this case, obtained a certificate of personal seal impression (No. 11) and a certificate of personal seal impression issued by the above non-party 1, and issued the above certificate of personal seal impression to the part of the insured's consent and the part of the beneficiary's consent in the above subscription form for the insurance contract, and delivered the above certificate of personal seal impression to the plaintiff company. Thus, it is argued that the above certificate of personal seal impression should be viewed as a written consent, which is a requirement for contract effect. Thus, the defendant submitted the above non-party 1's certificate of personal seal impression at the request of the plaintiff company around September 23, 1996 and affixed the above non-party 1's certificate of personal seal impression as of September 21, 196. However, according to the provisions of Article 731 (1) of the Commercial Act, the time when the insured must express his consent in writing until

C. In addition, the defendant's assertion that the insurance contract of this case is null and void on the ground that the plaintiff company, the insurer of this case, collects the premium on the premise that the insurance contract of this case is valid without the consent of the insured separately, and only demands the submission of a certificate of personal seal impression of the insured's seal impression and the above seal certificate after the conclusion of the insurance contract, but only after the occurrence of the insurance accident, there was no written consent of the insured. However, although Article 731 (1) of the Commercial Act provides that the insurance contract which covers the death of another person as an insurance accident of another person is in violation of the principle of trust and good faith and the principle of no written consent of the insured, the provisions of Article 731 (1) of the Commercial Act stipulating that the insurance contract of this case which covers the death of another person shall be subject to consent of the victim in addition to the risk of gambling insurance and the risk of murder of infringement of public order and good faith without the consent of the insured, it is interpreted that the above insurance contract of this case is null and void without the plaintiff's written consent of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking confirmation of existence of an obligation against the defendant who is dissatisfied with the existence of an obligation to pay the insurance money is decided as per Disposition on the ground of the reason.

Judges Jung-nam (Presiding Judge)