Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Head, Attorneys Park Jong-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

August 12, 2005

Gwangju District Court Decision 2004Da55426 Decided October 29, 2004

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. The defendant (appointed party) and the designated parties (hereinafter all the defendants together) confirm that they are not the beneficiary of the insurance claim that occurred as an insured accident on December 10, 1995 based on the insurance contract entered into between the plaintiff and the non-party.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 15, 1985, the Plaintiff (the beneficiary was changed from the Dong Life Insurance Co., Ltd. to the current trade name on July 3, 1989) concluded an insurance contract with the Nonparty as “he heir” in the case of the death of the beneficiary between the Nonparty and the Nonparty, and even at the time of the injury, the beneficiary was “he heir” as “he heir.”

B. The Nonparty suffered disability Grade 1 due to a traffic accident that occurred on December 10, 1995 at around 22:40, and the Defendants, if the Nonparty died at the time of the said traffic accident, are the Nonparty’s wife or child who becomes the Nonparty’s inheritor.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, each entry in 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff does not allow the "accident insurance for another person" in the accident insurance, such as the insurance contract of this case, in light of its legal principles, and the "he inheritor" cannot exist unless the decedent died. Since the beneficiary at the time of injury is no longer effective, the beneficiary based on the insurance contract of this case is the non-party who is the insured regardless of its description. Since the defendants are dissatisfied with this, it is argued that the defendants are not the beneficiary of the insurance claim of this case based on the insurance contract of this case.

B. Determination

(1) First, with respect to the assertion that an accident insurance for another person is not allowed, a policyholder may enter into an insurance contract for a specific or unspecified person without delegation or delegation. In such a case, the other party as a matter of course is not only to acquire contractual rights but also to acquire such contractual rights (Article 639(1) and (2) of the Commercial Act). In the case of an accident insurance, the policyholder has the right to designate or change a beneficiary, such as the case of an accident insurance (Articles 739 and 733 of the Commercial Act). Thus, even if the policyholder entered into an insurance contract for the content that the policyholder designates as a beneficiary, it is valid.

(2) Next, considering the argument that the designation of an inheritor as a beneficiary in an accident insurance for which an insurance amount is paid without death is null and void, in light of the following evidence and the overall purport of the argument as to the claim that the designation of the inheritor as a beneficiary is null and void. In light of the whole purport of the argument in the evidence and evidence No. B, in the case of the insurance contract in this case, the fact that the insured was dead or disabled (which appears to refer to the injury as provided in Article 1 subparag. 2 (a) through (h) of the Terms and Conditions) is allowed to pay the death insurance amount or disability insurance amount, and the non-party expressed all the beneficiaries as the inheritor in this case as seen earlier. Accordingly, if the non-party died as a result of the above injury, it is reasonable to view that the defendants who would have become his heir as a beneficiary are merely the expression "he heir" as a beneficiary. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion contrary to this is without merit.

2. Conclusion

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

[Attachment List of Selectioners and omitted indication of insurance contract]

Judges Kim Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)