2015Da212879 Confirmation of Non-existence of Obligations

Samsung Fire Insurance Co., Ltd.

person

1. A;

2. B

3. C.

Seoul High Court Decision 2013Na2026553 Decided March 3, 2015

August 27, 2015

The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal

A. In a case where a policyholder concludes an insurance contract for the purpose of unjust acquisition of insurance proceeds through multiple insurance contracts, the payment of insurance proceeds under an insurance contract concluded for such purpose would be in deviation from social reasonableness by encouraging speculative spirit to gain unjust profits through abuse of insurance contracts. Moreover, the purpose of the insurance system, such as reasonable diversification of risks, destroying the contingentness of risks, and causing the sacrifice of many subscribers, thereby impairing the foundation of the insurance system. Such insurance contract is null and void against good morals and other social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da49064, Feb. 11, 200; 2005Da23858, Jul. 28, 2005).

B. The court below citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance or acknowledged the following facts and circumstances based on the adopted evidence, and determined that the insurance contract of this case was null and void against good morals and other social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act, on the ground that it can be ratified that the deceased entered into the second insurance contract of this case for the purpose of illegally acquiring insurance proceeds by precluding multiple insurance accidents upon entering into a multiple life insurance contract.

1) On February 10, 2012, the Deceased concluded the instant second insurance contract with the Plaintiff on February 10, 2012 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da15488, Feb. 17, 2012). In this context, the Deceased’s intent to buy insurance by telephone to the insurance solicitor, and the Plaintiff’s intent to buy insurance in addition to injury and death, and concluded the instant third insurance contract with Dongbu Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. and the instant third insurance contract. On February 23, 2012, the Defendant concluded the instant fourth insurance contract with the Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. on February 23, 2012 after five days. All of the instant insurance contracts are identical in terms of the content that guarantees the insured’s death as a direct result of injury caused by sudden and remote accidents, and it is difficult to find any reasonable reasons to guarantee only the deceased’s total insurance amount paid according to each of the above insurance contracts and each of the instant contracts after death.

2) At the time of the conclusion of the instant insurance contract, the deceased owned the real estate Nos. 1 through 5 and received benefits of KRW 93 million annually. Meanwhile, the deceased was liable for a total of KRW 1,500,000 to financial institutions and individuals, and the establishment of a neighboring mortgage equivalent to KRW 2,374,00,000 was completed to secure the deceased’s above obligation. The interest rate to be borne by the deceased on the above obligation is only KRW 4,00,000 per month even if it was based on a financial institution’s loan. In view of the personal obligee’s obligation, it appears that the deceased’s family members did not know that it was inevitable for the deceased to use the monthly benefit of the deceased, and that it was difficult for the deceased to use the monthly benefit of KRW 4,000,000,000,000 for the deceased’s family members to incur considerable damages to the deceased’s family members for any reason, but it appears that the deceased’s family members were able to receive reimbursement of KRW 16,00.

A) On the road in which the instant accident occurred, the direction that the deceased was proceeding in the form of a straight line, the direction that the J was proceeding, from 240 meters before the point of the accident, to 240 meters before the point of the accident, and from 120 meters after the point of the accident to the direction that the J was proceeding, the surface was built at the time of the accident, and there was no other motor vehicle or obstacle in the front direction of the deceased’s proceeding. At the time of the accident, the speed of the car truck drivened by the J is presumed to be 40 to 50 meters at the hour, and the speed of the car driver driven by the deceased is presumed to be 52 to 110km at the speed of the time of the accident.

B) Examining the collision location of the above two vehicles and the collision situation, in the situation where the left side of the vehicle of the car-type truck runs far from about 0.4m to the center line, and nearly from the center line, it can be presumed that the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle is tightly collision with the center line in the form of approximately 5∑ 5∑ mix to the left side on the basis of its direction direction, or the front side of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of the vehicle of this case was 3,4,5 mar to the left side on the center line or over part of the center line.

C) The direction of the vehicle running around the point of the instant accident is lowering from the center line to the side of the road with approximately 2% cross sloped slope degrees, and in general, the vehicle with a light of approximately 30 meters wide and less than the steering Hands, to the extent of which the wheels turn back to the steering Hand on both sides.

C. In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the court below acknowledged the above facts and circumstances, and determined that the above insurance contract was a violation of Article 103 of the Civil Act by deeming that the deceased concluded the second insurance contract for the purpose of illegally acquiring insurance proceeds by iceing the insurance accident through concluding a multiple life insurance contracts. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the application of Article 103

2. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

A. Where the terms and conditions of an insurance contract stipulate that "the insured's intentional act or loss caused by the insured's suicide shall not be compensated for", the insurer shall be responsible for proving the fact that falls under the above reasons for exemption. In such cases, the existence of objective physical evidence, such as a document stating his/her intent to commit suicide, or a reasonable doubt as to the possibility of not committing suicide in ordinary people's common sense should be proved (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Da70540, Apr. 14, 200; 201Da113066, Jul. 12, 2013).

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion of exemption from liability due to the Plaintiff’s intentional act or suicide as to the insurance contract No. 1 of this case, on the following grounds: (a) the deceased was wearing safety belts at the time of the accident; (b) the possibility that the accident of this case was likely to occur due to care of the deceased; (c) the deceased did not seem to have been capable of committing suicide, such as depression, etc.; and (iv) there was no objective evidence to confirm the deceased’s intent to commit suicide; and (b) the facts acknowledged by the court below are insufficient to recognize that the accident of this case was caused by the deceased’s intentional act or suicide. However, according to the aforementioned facts and circumstances acknowledged by the court below, the deceased concluded the insurance contract of this case No. 2 through No. 4 of this case, which was inevitably paid insurance money at the time of death by contact with the insurance solicitor with a large amount of liability; and (c) the deceased’s 20 million weeks thereafter, he operated the deceased’s vessel with the deceased’s consciousness or personal injury.

In light of the above facts and circumstances, the court below determined that the deceased concluded the insurance contract of this case Nos. 2 through 4 for the purpose of unlawfully acquiring the insurance proceeds by taking into account the above facts and circumstances. Thus, even if considering the above ① to 4 circumstances, the accident of this case should be deemed to have actually caused the deceased to acquire the insurance proceeds after entering into the insurance contract with the above motive, and therefore, it shall be deemed that the accident of this case was directly caused by the deceased for the purpose of acquiring the insurance proceeds. Accordingly, it shall be sufficiently proved that there was a reasonable doubt about the possibility of not committing suicide in ordinary sense.

D. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, and contrary to the reasoning of the judgment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo

Justices Kim Yong-deok

The Chief Justice Park Jae-young

Justices Kim Gin-young