[1] Where a policyholder entered into an insurance contract covering another person's death as an insured accident with the insured's written consent, but there is a serious change in the circumstances based on the insured's written consent, whether the insured can withdraw his/her consent (affirmative), and the standard for determining whether the insured has a serious change in the circumstances based on

[2] In a case where Eul et al., a corporation, an executive officer or employee of Eul et al., concluded an insurance contract with Eul et al. as the insured in order to prepare consolation money to be paid to the surviving families when they were employed, and Eul et al. agreed to conclude the insurance contract, the case affirming the judgment below holding that Eul et al. may withdraw the consent of the insurance contract due to a significant change in the circumstance

[1] In light of the purport of Articles 731 and 734(2) of the Commercial Act, where an insurance contract becomes effective by a policyholder’s signing of an insurance contract which covers another’s death with the insured’s written consent, even though there was no provision in the insurance clause regarding the withdrawal of the insured’s consent, and there was no separate agreement between the parties to the contract, the insured may withdraw the consent, regardless of whether the policyholder or the beneficiary gave consent or consent, in a case where there was a significant change in the circumstances on the basis of the insured’s written consent. Furthermore, whether there was a significant change in the circumstances on the basis of the insured’s written consent should be determined individually and specifically in light of social norms by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the motive or circumstance of the policyholder or the insured’s signing of the insurance contract or the written consent, the purpose to be achieved through the insurance contract or written consent, the relationship between the policyholder or the beneficiary and the insured before and after the conclusion of the insurance contract, and whether the policyholder

[2] In a case where Eul et al., who was employed as an executive or employee of Eul et al, concluded an insurance contract with Eul et al. as the insured in order to prepare consolation benefits, etc. to be paid to the surviving family members when they were employed, and Eul et al. consented to the conclusion of the insurance contract, the case affirming the judgment below holding that Eul et al, et al. may withdraw the consent of the insurance contract, since Eul et al.’s continued employment at Eul et al.’s retirement from the company

[1] Articles 731 and 734 of the Commercial Act / [2] Articles 731 and 734 of the Commercial Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm Jae-sung, Attorneys Lee Jae- lodging et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Annb Co., Ltd. (Attorney Park Ho-dae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2011Na24373 decided November 3, 2011

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 731(1) of the Commercial Act, which provides that a person’s written consent shall be obtained at the time of concluding a life insurance contract for another person’s life (hereinafter “the life insurance contract for another person”) which covers the death of another person as an insured event, provides that the legislative purport is to exclude the risk of gambling insurance, risk to the insured, or risk to the death of another person under a speculative contract without the consent of the insured, from the risk of infringement on public order and good morals (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da60259, Apr. 27, 2006). In the same purport, Articles 731(2) and 734(2) of the Commercial Act provide that the insured’s written consent shall be obtained when transferring the right arising from an insurance contract to a person other than the insured or when the policyholder designates or changes the beneficiary after the conclusion of the contract.

In light of the above purport of Articles 731 and 734(2) of the Commercial Act, where a policyholder enters into a life insurance contract of another person with the insured’s written consent and the effect of such insurance contract takes place, even if there is no provision in the terms and conditions of insurance as to the withdrawal of the insured’s consent and there is no separate agreement between the parties to the contract, the insured may withdraw the consent, regardless of whether the policyholder or the beneficiary gave consent or consent, in a case where there is a significant change in the circumstances on the basis of the insured’s written consent. Furthermore, whether there is a significant change in the circumstances on the basis of the insured’s written consent should be determined individually and specifically in light of social norms by comprehensively taking into account such circumstances as the policyholder or the insured’s motive or circumstance leading up to the conclusion of the insurance contract or the written consent, the purpose to be achieved through the insurance contract or the written consent, the relationship between the policyholder or the beneficiary and the insured before and after the conclusion of the insurance contract, and whether the

In full view of the adopted evidence, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning. The lower court determined that the Plaintiffs could withdraw their consent to each of the instant insurance contracts, provided that the Plaintiffs, who were executives and employees of the Defendant Company, were in office to raise consolation money, etc. to their surviving families when they were insured accidents during their employment. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs consented to the conclusion of each of the instant insurance contracts as the insured, and that not only the Plaintiffs and the Defendant Company, but also the insurance companies, were well aware of such circumstances at the time of the conclusion of each of the instant insurance contracts, and thus, the Plaintiffs continued to hold office in the Defendant Company constitutes the premise for the Plaintiffs’ consent to each of the instant insurance contracts. Therefore, the lower court determined that the Plaintiffs could withdraw their consent to each of

In light of the above legal principles and records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the withdrawal of the consent of the insured or the principle of change of circumstances.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)