The meaning of “suicide” stipulated as an insurer’s exemption in an insurance contract which covers death as an insured event, and in cases where an act of direct cause which causes death in a situation where the insured is unable to make a free decision due to external factors, whether it constitutes death, which is an insured incident (affirmative)

In a case where a suicide is stipulated as an insurer’s exemption from liability in an insurance contract which covers death as an insured event, suicide refers to an act of intentionally cutting one’s own life for its purpose and causing death. It does not include the case where the insured is unable to make a free decision due to mental illness, etc., and thus, if a direct act of causing death is caused by an external factor, the death can be deemed as an insured accident, which is not intentional by the insured.

However, the purport of this exemption is that the insured's mental illness is stipulated as an independent reason from the insured's intentional act or the suicide of the insured, and the risk increased when the risk of injury increases substantially due to the insured's mental illness, is to exclude from the subject of the insurance protection, and the risk taken over in the insurance can be determined differently depending on the insurance product. Thus, the terms and conditions of the standardized contract stipulated under this exemption cannot be deemed as a clause which unfairly disadvantages the customer, and thus, if the insured has become unable to make a free decision due to a mental illness and the insured has caused an accident, the insurer's obligation to pay the insurance money is exempted in accordance with the above exemption.

Articles 659(1) and 732-2 of the Commercial Act; Articles 6(1) and 6(2)1 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act

Supreme Court Decision 2005Da49713 Decided March 10, 2006 (Gong2006Sang, 610) Supreme Court Decision 2007Da76696 Decided August 21, 2008 (Gong2008Ha, 1284) Supreme Court Decision 2013Da18929 Decided April 10, 2014

Dongbu Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Cheonghae, Attorneys Seo-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and two others (Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 2014Na1935 decided December 23, 2014

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the deceased’s death of a tree constitutes a case where the death result occurred in a situation where it is impossible to make free decisions due to mental fission.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors of violating the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, each of the insurance contracts of this case includes the following facts: (a) in the event the insured died within one year from the date of the accident as a direct result of a sudden and remote accident resulting in bodily injury to his body during the insurance period; (b) the insured’s intentional act, self-harm, attempted suicide, suicide, criminal act or violence under the Criminal Act; (c) the insured’s disease or mental disorder; and (d) injury caused by the insured’s mental illness (hereinafter “instant exemption clause”).

B. In the event that an insurance contract for the death of an insured event provides for the reason for the exemption of an insurer’s suicide as an insurance accident, the suicide refers to an act of intentionally cutting one’s own life for the purpose of life and causing the death result, and it does not include cases where the insured intentionally caused the death result while it is unable to make a free decision due to mental illness, etc. Therefore, if the insured’s direct cause of death occurred due to external factors, such death may constitute an insurance accident without intention of the insured (see Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da49713, Mar. 10, 2006; 2007Da7696, Aug. 21, 2008; 2007Da7696, Apr. 1, 2008). However, if the insured’s exemption clause provides that the insured’s mental illness as separate from the insured’s intentional act or suicide, and the insured’s risk of injury cannot be determined by the insurer’s free decision-making ability to prevent the occurrence of the insured’s mental disease.

C. Nevertheless, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for exemption on the ground that the part of the “injury caused by the insured’s mental illness” under the instant exemption clause ought to be deemed null and void pursuant to Article 6(1) and (2)1 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act, which read that the insured’s act includes the case of suicide in a situation in which it is unable to make a free decision due to mental illness. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the invalidation of

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)