In a case where Gap and Eul insurance company concluded an insurance contract that pays "transport disaster death benefit", "general disaster death benefit", and "general death benefit" according to the cause of death of Gap and Eul insurance beneficiary Byung with Gap and Eul insurance beneficiary Byung, and they concluded an insurance contract that "the insured shall not grant immunity after the lapse of two years from the insurance contract date," but Gap committed suicide five years after the insurance contract date, the case holding that Eul company is liable to pay Byung general death benefit.

In a case where Gap and Eul insurance company entered into an insurance contract with Gap and Eul insurance beneficiary Byung to pay "transport disaster death benefit", "general disaster death benefit", and "general death benefit" according to the reason for the death of the insured, and "the insured does not grant immunity after the lapse of two years from the date of the insurance contract," but Gap received a diagnosis of depression five years from the date of the insurance contract and provided care treatment while taking care of the patient, the case holding that in a case where the insured person caused an accident due to his own will, such as suicide, there is lack of chance, and that the above accident cannot be viewed as a disaster because it is difficult for Gap to make free decision at the time of the suicide, and thus Eul company is obligated to pay general death benefit to Byung.

Article 105 of the Civil Act, Articles 659(1) and 732-2 of the Commercial Act

Plaintiff (Law Firm Chungcheong, Attorneys Lee Dong-seok et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Republic of Korea (Attorney Kang Jae-won, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2013Ra2371 decided December 18, 2013

July 15, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 65,00,000 won with 5% per annum from February 8, 2013 to the date of this judgment, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, Eul evidence 2, 3-1, 4-2, and 4-2:

A. On June 8, 2007, the deceased non-party 1 (formerly: Non-party 1) entered into a contract of Eburian injury insurance for which the deceased and the beneficiary are legal successors, and which is paid in KRW 25,00,000 of the insurance money at the time of death in a ordinary daily accident (hereinafter “No. 1 insurance”), and Article 18 of the terms and conditions of the above insurance contract are as follows.

Article 18 (Insurance Accidents not Payment of Insurance Money) (1) of the Table contained in the main sentence (Insurance Accidents) ① The defendant may terminate this contract at the same time with the failure to pay insurance money or exempt the payment of insurance money when any of the following events occurs: 1. Where a person subject to insurance (insured) intentionally damages himself/herself: Provided, That this shall not apply where it is proved that he/she has damaged himself/herself in a state that he/she cannot make a free decision due to mental illness, etc.:

B. On July 12, 2007, the Deceased and the beneficiary of the Insured were the Plaintiff, and the Deceased and the beneficiary were the Plaintiff, and the Deceased and the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the fixed-term insurance to which KRW 80,000 insurance money is paid at the time of the death of a general disaster, and KRW 40,000,000 of the insurance money at the time of the general death (hereinafter “second-term insurance”). Articles 13 and 15 of the terms and conditions of the above insurance contract are as follows.

Article 13 (Types and Grounds for Payment of Insurance Money) (1) The defendant shall pay the insurance money agreed upon to the insured (beneficiary) when any of the following causes occurs to the insured during the insurance period. 2. When he/she dies due to a disaster as provided in attached Table 4 (Traffic Classification Table 4): Provided, That this shall not apply to the case where he/she intentionally causes a disaster (excluding the traffic disaster as provided in subparagraph 2; hereinafter referred to as "general accident") as provided in attached Table 2: When he/she dies due to a direct cause:

C. Around February 2012, the Deceased committed suicide by hanging trees at his home toilets on August 22, 2012, while receiving a diagnosis of depression and performing outpatient treatment. The Deceased’s legal heir is one of the spouse Nonparty 2 and two children, while the Plaintiff is the mother of the Deceased.

D. The Plaintiff claimed insurance money under each of the instant insurance contracts to the Defendant, but the Defendant paid only KRW 40,000,000 to the Plaintiff for a general death benefit under the instant insurance contract.

2. Determination of the first insurance money

The plaintiff argued that the deceased was subject to serious assault in the marriage life with the former husband, and was in bad credit conditions due to guarantee, and that the relationship between the married husband and the former husband was difficult due to the relationship between the deceased's husband and the former husband. In such a situation, the deceased committed suicide in a situation where he cannot make a decision due to severe mental depression, depression symptoms, etc., and therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiff KRW 25,00,000 for the general accident death insurance money of the ordinary day pursuant to the proviso of Article 18 (1) 1 of the Clause of the first Insurance Policy.

On the other hand, as seen earlier, the beneficiary of the first insurance contract is a legal inheritor, who is the deceased’s spouse and lineal descendant. As such, the Plaintiff, a lineal ascendant of the deceased, is not a legal inheritor of the deceased. Therefore, without any need to further examine the remainder of the claim for insurance under the first insurance.

3. Determination on the second insurance money

The plaintiff is obligated to pay the plaintiff 40,000,000 won remaining after deducting the insurance amount already paid from 80,000,000 won of the general accident death insurance amount to the plaintiff pursuant to the proviso of Article 15 (1) 1 of the Clause of the 2 insurance contract, and even if the deceased cannot make a free decision, the deceased committed suicide after two years from the date of the conclusion of the 2 insurance contract, and the proviso of Article 15 (1) 1 of the 2 insurance contract provides that the insured shall pay the insurance amount if he committed a suicide after two years from the date of the conclusion of the 2 insurance contract, and the defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of 40,000,000 won after deducting the insurance amount already paid from the general accident death insurance amount to the plaintiff pursuant to the above provision of the 2 insurance contract.

According to the overall purport of evidence No. 4, evidence No. 1, and evidence No. 1 and evidence No. 1, the deceased divorced from the former husband's assault, and the mental division was caused by shock, and thus, the deceased took a medical care of a hospital with a pain pain, and the deceased was in bad credit condition. However, according to the above evidence and the result of the fact that the deceased was in bad credit condition, it is difficult to view the deceased's suicide as one male and female between the former husband and the latter's husband without any difficulty at home at the time of death, and it is difficult to view that the deceased's mental disease was suspended from the first instance court's medical corporation's mental health care, and there was no other evidence that the deceased was in bad credit condition. In light of the above fact that the deceased's mental illness was no other than the first instance court's medical corporation's mental illness, it was difficult to view that the deceased did not have any other personality on the day of his death, and that the deceased was no other than the first instance court's new mental illness.

Meanwhile, Article 15(1)1 of the Terms and Conditions of the Second Insurance provides that "the insured intentionally injures himself/herself," which does not pay insurance proceeds, i.e., "the case of suicide after two years from the date of the insurance contract," and the proviso provides that "the case of suicide after two years from the date of the insurance contract," and that the deceased committed suicide after two years from the date of the insurance contract of the Second Insurance. However, the above terms and conditions of the Terms and Conditions of the Second Insurance distinguish "the case of death due to a direct cause of a traffic accident" from "the case of death due to a cause other than a disaster," "the case of death due to a cause other than a disaster" and "the case of death due to a cause other than a disaster," respectively. However, if the insured intentionally commits suicide, it shall be exempted from liability to pay insurance proceeds even if the above cause of payment of insurance proceeds occurred after the lapse of two years from the date of the insurance contract, and shall be paid insurance proceeds even if the insured intentionally commits a suicide, in light of the language and structure of the above insurance clauses.

Therefore, it is difficult to view the insured's suicide as a disaster because the insured's suicide constitutes "general disaster" as stipulated in Article 13 (1) 3 of the Terms and Conditions, and the ordinary accident refers to "accident that occurs due to an unforeseeable cause and not intentional but foreseeable." Thus, it refers to an accident that causes an unforeseeable result in an ordinary process (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da55499, 5505, Nov. 19, 2001, etc.). Thus, if the insured causes an accident due to an act based on one's own will, such as suicide, it is difficult to view it as a disaster (the annexed disaster classification table of the 2 insurance clauses excludes intentional self-harm). However, even if the result of the accident occurred due to an intentional accident, if the insured's decision-making is not possible at the time of the accident, it can not be seen that the insured's decision-making was made free.

Therefore, the above terms and conditions shall be interpreted as receiving the general death insurance money by having a provision restricting the exemption from suicide, which requires the insured to pay the insurance money if he/she intentionally commits a suicide after the lapse of two years from the date of the insurance contract. As long as the provision of the above terms and conditions can be reasonably interpreted, the language and structure of the terms and conditions only stipulate the accident death insurance are somewhat unclear, so that there is room to believe that the insured commits a suicide after the lapse of two years from the date of the insurance contract that he/she would be receiving the insurance money for the death of a disaster, unlike the cases where there is room to believe that the above provision would be receiving the insurance money for the death of a disaster, it cannot be interpreted that the insured would pay the general

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Suspension of Justice Lee Sung-ho (Presiding Judge)