In an insurance contract in which an inheritor is the beneficiary, the case rejecting the insurance company's allegation of exemption from liability that has paid insurance proceeds only to South and North Korea without properly investigating the inheritance relations of the insured and omitting the persons between the insured and the former and the latter.

Notwithstanding an insurance contract in which the heir at the time of the death of the insured is the beneficiary, the case rejecting the provisions of the insurance clauses stating that "any act performed by an insurance company against one of the beneficiaries shall also have an effect on other beneficiaries," and the insurer's assertion of immunity on the ground of non-performance by the insurance company, with respect to the payment of insurance proceeds only to the current spouse of the insured with the omission of the persons between the co-inheritors who are co-inheritors

Article 639 of the Commercial Act, Article 105 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Postal Authority, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Dongyang Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm, Kim & Lee, Attorneys Park Jong-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 96Na35042 delivered on March 28, 1997

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 48,341,396 won with 25 percent interest per annum from December 23, 1994 to the date of full payment.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts and determination of recognition

A. The following facts do not conflict between the parties; Gap evidence 1-1-3; Eul evidence 2-1-2; Eul evidence 3-1-3; Gap evidence 4-1-2; Gap evidence 5; Eul evidence 6-1-5; 6, 7, 8, 8, 9, 11; Eul evidence 1-2, 3; Eul evidence 2-3; Eul evidence 3-1-2; Eul evidence 4-1 through 7; Eul evidence 4-1-7; and evidence 4-1 through 4-7; Eul evidence 5-2; Eul evidence 6-1-5; Eul evidence 1-2, 3; Eul evidence 2-3; Eul evidence 3-2; Eul evidence 4-1 to 4-7; and evidence 5-2; and evidence 5-1 and evidence 5-2.

(1) On August 19, 191, the non-party 1 recommended the non-party Kim Un-American Association, an insurance solicitor of the defendant company, and entered into a non-party 1 insurance contract (securities number 00,000,000 won for insurance premium of 10,000,43,400 won for insurance premium of August 18, 201, the maturity of which is 43,400 won for the above non-party 1, the above non-party 1 at the maturity of and injury to the beneficiary, the above non-party 1 at the time of death, and the heir at the time of death (securities number 0134575) with the non-party 1, the above non-party 1, the above non-party 1, the above non-party 1, and the above non-party 3's heir at the maturity of 10,000,000 won for lump-sum insurance premium of 1,000,003

(2) On June 2, 1993, Nonparty 1 driven a car at around 11:00, and passed through the new road for the Hanan-gun of the Hanan-gun of the Chungcheongnambuk-do, died due to a collision between the tourist buses, which were proceeding in the opposite direction by putting the hand on the driver’s accommodation, by overworking the hand, leading to the central line.

(3) On December 17, 1985, the above non-party 1 married with the non-party 2 and delivered the plaintiff on February 16, 1986. On January 18, 1990, the agreement is married with the above non-party 2, and on August 22, 1990, the non-party 1 was married with the non-party 3 at the time of the above death.

(4) Meanwhile, on June 9, 1993, the above non-party 3 requested the payment of insurance proceeds to the defendant company upon the death of the above non-party 1, and the defendant company ordered the non-party Kim Jong-hun, an employee of the contract preservation team, to examine the above insurance claims. The above Kim Jong-hun mainly investigated whether the causes of death of the above non-party 1 were suicide (the defendant company has no obligation to pay insurance proceeds in accordance with the insurance terms and conditions). The above non-party 3 received only a certified copy of his family register and a certified copy of his resident registration from the above non-party 3 as a document proving the inheritance relation, and thereby, it was justifiable to determine that the above non-party 3 paid the total amount of insurance proceeds to the above non-party 1 as a sole heir who is the husband of the above non-party 1. On July 3, 1993, the defendant company remitted KRW 120,853,492 to the defendant company's principal office and paid the insurance proceeds to the above non-party 3.

B. According to the above facts, the defendant should pay the above insurance proceeds to the plaintiff, who is the co-inheritors of the above non-party 1, the amount equivalent to the plaintiff's legal share of the above insurance proceeds, but the above insurance proceeds are paid to the non-party 3. Thus, the payment of the insurance proceeds cannot be asserted to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the above insurance proceeds to the plaintiff 48,341,396 won (120,853,492 won x 2/5) corresponding to

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. According to the terms and conditions of the insurance contract in this case, if there are more than one beneficiary, the act of the beneficiary against the other beneficiary is effective against the other beneficiary, so long as the defendant paid the insurance money to the above non-party 3 as above, it shall also affect the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for the payment of the amount corresponding to the share with the above non-party 3 is separate from the plaintiff's claim for the payment of the insurance money again against the defendant. Thus, according to the above insurance contract (Evidence A No. 2-1), if there are more than one contractor or beneficiary, one representative shall be designated respectively. In this case, the representative shall act on behalf of the other contractor or beneficiary. If there is no designated representative under Paragraph 1 or the whereabouts of the contractor or beneficiary is not clear, the act of the company against the other contractor or beneficiary shall be effective against the non-party 3, as long as there is no provision of Paragraph 4-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-3-3-3-3-3-3.

B. In addition, according to the above non-party 1's resident registration certificate and the above non-party 3's family register copy which were submitted by the above non-party 1 to the above non-party 3, the defendant did not have any negligence on the part of the defendant when he paid insurance money to the non-party 3. Thus, in light of the above facts, the plaintiff's claim was unfair, and the non-party 1's statement No. 2-1, No. 3-2, No. 3-2, and No. 1, No. 3-2, and No. 3-2, the above non-party 1 did not know that the above non-party 1 had been married to the above non-party 2 and was the non-party 3's birth, and the above non-party 1 did not have the above non-party 1's her mother's son's son's son's son and the above non-party 3's son's son's son's son.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above 48,341,396 won as well as damages for delay at the rate of 25 percent per annum from December 23, 1994 to the full payment day under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Sungmun-mun (Presiding Judge)