Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorney Seo-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Young-hoon, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Sungyang Industrial Co., Ltd.

November 20, 2002

1. All of the plaintiffs' primary claims are dismissed.

2. All of the plaintiffs' conjunctive claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 52,585,714 won, plaintiff 2, and 3 respectively with 25,057,143 won and 25% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. From March 30, 201 to October 30, 2001, the Defendant’s Intervenor (hereinafter “Defendant’s Intervenor”) established for the purpose of manufacturing and selling ready-mixeds (hereinafter “Defendant’s Intervenor”) concluded five times the “new organization regular insurance”, which is a collective insurance between the Defendant and the insured, with the employees of the Intervenor including the deceased Nonparty 1, and the employees of the Intervenor, the policyholder and the beneficiary as the Intervenor (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”), and among them, the content of the insurance contract on the part of the deceased Nonparty 1 is as listed in the insurance contract list.

B. According to the instant insurance contract, in the event of an insured incident, such as the death or injury of the employee of the insured Intervenor, the Defendant is obliged to pay the insurance proceeds stipulated in the insurance clause to the Intervenor who is the beneficiary.

C. However, while the deceased non-party 1 had completed the business on December 7, 2001, which was within the insurance period of the insurance contract of this case, there was an insurance accident resulting in death of dump trucks from 176, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si. However, the supplementary intervenor did not claim insurance money against the defendant based on the above insurance accident until now.

D. The plaintiffs are the deceased non-party 1's successors, and plaintiffs 1 are the deceased non-party 1's wife, and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are children.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1, whole purport of pleading

2. Grounds for the claim;

(a) The primary cause of the claim;

In the instant insurance contract, even if the beneficiary was designated as an assistant intervenor in the instant insurance contract, in light of the purpose of organization insurance and social role, the designation of the beneficiary is merely the designation of a formal beneficiary, and the substantial beneficiary is considered as the insured or his heir. Therefore, the right to receive insurance proceeds in the instant insurance contract is against the Plaintiffs, who are the heir of the insured. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay insurance proceeds under the instant insurance contract directly to the Plaintiffs.

(b) Preliminary cause of claim.

In the instant insurance contract, even if the beneficiary is designated as the assisting intervenor and the Plaintiffs cannot directly claim insurance money to the Defendant, the Plaintiffs are entitled to claim insurance money equivalent to the amount of insurance money to be paid to the Defendant by the assisting intervenor by exercising the right to claim insurance money against the Defendant, on the ground that the terms and conditions of the agreement (Evidence 7-1) written by the assisting intervenor and the employer of the assisting intervenor submitted by the assisting intervenor to the Defendant when concluding the instant insurance contract are concluded, the Plaintiffs are entitled to claim the payment of insurance money to the Defendant by exercising the right to claim insurance money against the assisting intervenor. Therefore, the assisting intervenor’s right to claim the payment of insurance money against the Defendant

2. Determination:

(a) Facts of recognition;

(1) The Intervenor entered into a new group regular insurance contract with the Defendant around 1999 in order to get a discount from the loan interest rate while the Defendant was under pressure to repay the loan from the Defendant, and concluded the instant insurance contract with the Defendant at the time of maturity and re-enters with the Defendant upon the Defendant’s request for re-Joining at the time of maturity.

(2) At the time of the instant insurance contract, the supplementary intervenor’s document submitted to the Defendant, which provides that “the insurance money shall be for the purpose of company assistance consolation benefits when an employee’s insurance accident occurs” (Evidence A-7-1). The employee of the supplementary intervenor’s accounting division voluntarily signed and sealed and submitted it to the Defendant. The supplementary intervenor did not separately request the employees to consent to the preparation of the written confirmation of the content of the bylaws, the subscription of collective insurance, and there was no consent or consultation with the trade union.

(3) There is no provision regarding the purchase of group insurance in the rules of organization or rules of employment of the supplementary intervenor (Article 106 of the Rules of Employment provides that “The supplementary intervenor shall not be liable to compensate for any accident other than the duties of the employee”

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 7-1, 2-2, testimony of Non-Party 2, Non-Party 3, and whole purport of oral argument

(b) Markets:

(1) Article 731(1) of the Commercial Act provides, “The insurance contract which covers the death of another person as an insured accident shall obtain the written consent of the other person at the time of conclusion of the insurance contract,” and Article 735-3(1) of the Commercial Act provides, “Article 731 shall not apply where an organization concludes a life insurance contract where all or part of its members are the insured in accordance with its regulations.” Thus, Article 731(1) of the Commercial Act provides, “In the event that the organization concludes the life insurance contract where the whole or part of its members are the insured in accordance with its regulations, there

However, as seen above, the Intervenor did not obtain written consent from the insured workers, and there is no provision regarding the purchase of collective insurance in collective agreements and rules of employment, as well as the rules of employment submitted by the Intervenor to the Defendant for the consent of employees or on behalf of the rules (Evidence A-7-1) also does not obtain consent from employees, or obtain consent from the labor union, etc. representing workers, or arbitrarily signed and sealed by the employees of the finance division of the Intervenor for the purpose of adjusting the interest rate of the loans. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the Intervenor’s consent or the “laws” under Article 735-3(1) of the Commercial Act is not applicable.

Therefore, since the insurance contract of this case is concluded without agreement or consent, it is null and void, the defendant does not bear the duty to pay insurance money to the supplementary intervenor under the insurance contract of this case.

(2) If so, the primary claim premised on the validity of the plaintiffs' insurance contract of this case is without merit (in the case of group insurance, the designation of the beneficiary can be concluded as the "insurance contract for another person" with the insured who is a member of the organization as the beneficiary of the insurance contract, and the policyholder can be concluded as the "insurance contract for one's own interest" with the policyholder as the beneficiary of the insurance contract, and since it does not necessarily have to be an insurance contract for another person as a group insurance, designating the beneficiary as the policyholder of this case does not go against the essence of group insurance (Supreme Court Decision 98Da59613 delivered on May 25, 199). Therefore, as long as the beneficiary of this case is designated as the supplementary intervenor in the insurance contract of this case, only the intervenor as the beneficiary of this case has the right to claim the insurance payment as the beneficiary of this case. Therefore, the plaintiffs' primary claim that the plaintiffs as the beneficiary of this point is groundless).

(3) Furthermore, with respect to the plaintiffs' preliminary claim, the right to claim the return of the insurance money against the supplementary intervenor, who is the right to claim compensation against the supplementary intervenor, the right to claim compensation against the supplementary intervenor, is subject to the existence of the supplementary intervenor's right to claim the payment of insurance money against the defendant, and as long as the defendant's obligation to claim the payment of insurance money does not exist as above, the right to claim compensation against the supplementary intervenor does not constitute the right to claim compensation against the supplementary intervenor. Therefore, since the plaintiffs' preliminary claim against the defendant exists

4. Conclusion

All of the plaintiffs' primary claims against the defendant are dismissed as without merit, and the conjunctive claims are dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.

Judges Yoon Jae-ap (Presiding Judge)