The legal nature of the change of the beneficiary under Article 733(1) of the Commercial Act (=the sole act without the other party) and whether the effect of the change of the beneficiary arises even if the expression of intention is not reached by the insurer or the beneficiary (affirmative)

The policyholder has the right to change the beneficiary (Article 733(1) of the Commercial Act). The right to change the beneficiary is a right to form an insurance beneficiary, and a policyholder may freely exercise the right without the consent of the insurer or the beneficiary, and the change becomes effective immediately by exercise of the right. However, the policyholder cannot oppose the insurer without notifying the insurer after the change of the beneficiary (Article 734(1) of the Commercial Act). In light of the legal nature of the right to change the beneficiary and the interpretation of the Commercial Act, it is reasonable to deem that the change of the beneficiary is a sole act without the other party. As long as the expression of intention of change of the beneficiary objectively is objectively confirmed, the change of the beneficiary occurs even if

Articles 733(1) and 734(1) of the Commercial Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Young-soo, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm Shin, Attorney Go-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Cheongju District Court Decision 2018Na7420 decided December 19, 2018

The judgment of the court of first instance is reversed, and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed. All costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

The policyholder has the right to change the beneficiary (Article 733(1) of the Commercial Act). The right to change the beneficiary is a right to form an insurance beneficiary, and a policyholder may freely exercise the right without the consent of the insurer or the beneficiary, and the change becomes effective immediately by exercise of the right. However, the policyholder cannot oppose the insurer without notifying the insurer after the change of the beneficiary (Article 734(1) of the Commercial Act). In light of the legal nature of the right to change the beneficiary and the interpretation of the provisions of the Commercial Act, it is reasonable to deem that the change of the beneficiary is a sole act without the other party. As long as the expression of intention of change of the beneficiary objectively is objectively confirmed, the change of the beneficiary occurs

For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the beneficiary changed from the Defendant to the Plaintiff on the premise that the Deceased expressed to the Defendant his intent to change the beneficiary of the instant insurance contract objectively.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court cannot be deemed to have erred by violating the rules of evidence or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. We examine ex officio the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit.

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, around December 2, 2016, the beneficiary was changed from the Defendant to the Plaintiff due to the exercise of the right of change of the beneficiary of the Deceased, and on October 8, 2017, the Deceased’s death, the Plaintiff has no legal interest in seeking the transfer of the instant insurance claim and the implementation of the procedures for giving notice of transfer. Therefore, even though the instant lawsuit is inappropriate as there is no legal interest in the lawsuit, the lower court’s dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claim is unreasonable, and thus, accepted the Plaintiff’s claim after the revocation of the first instance judgment, and thus, cannot avoid the reversal of the lower judgment.

However, the plaintiff who is a sole heir of the deceased pointed out that the insurer may claim the payment of insurance money by notifying the beneficiary of the change from the defendant to the plaintiff.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed. Since this case is sufficient for the Supreme Court to directly render a judgment, the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed, and the total cost of the lawsuit is borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Seon-soo (Presiding Justice)