The validity of the standardized contract clauses stipulated as an exemption of the insurer's liability for any violation of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the failure of the insured's safety belt, in an insurance contract which covers the death or injury

According to Articles 732-2, 739, and 663 of the Commercial Act, with respect to life insurance which covers death or bodily injury as an insured accident, if the insured event is not caused intentionally, it shall be liable to pay the insurance proceeds even if the insured event occurred due to gross negligence. In light of the legislative purport, etc. of the above provisions, in an insurance contract which covers death or bodily injury of the insured, not only where the insured is negligent in the cause of the occurrence of the insured but also where there is a reason of violation of Acts and subordinate statutes such as non-use of safety belts in the situation at the time of the occurrence of the insured event, even if the terms and conditions of the terms and conditions of the insurance contract stipulate as the reason of exemption of the insurer,

Articles 63, 732-2, and 739 of the Commercial Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Park Young-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Heung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Han-chul, Attorney Kim Yong-nam, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Na26441 Decided November 22, 2012

The part of the judgment below against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Central District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Determination on the validity of the instant reduction agreement

A. According to Articles 732-2, 739, and 663 of the Commercial Act, with respect to personal insurance whose death or bodily injury is an insured accident, if the insured event is not caused intentionally, it shall be liable to pay the insurance proceeds even if gross negligence occurs, and in light of the legislative purport, etc. of the above provisions, in an insurance contract which covers the death or bodily injury of the insured, not only where there is negligence on the cause of the occurrence of the insured but also where there is a reason of violation of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the non-performance of safety belts, etc., in the situation at the time of the occurrence of the insured event, even if the terms and conditions of the terms and conditions of the insurance contract stipulate as the reason of exemption of the insurer, such act does not

B. According to the record, when the Plaintiff entered into a comprehensive insurance contract for an automobile owned by the Plaintiff with the Defendant for options, the Plaintiff entered into a special contract for a self-physical accident with the effect that the insured would compensate for the amount of death covered by the insured automobile that occurred during the possession, use, and management of the insured automobile, and the amount of actual medical expenses (the injury insurance money) and the insurance amount by disability grade (the injury insurance amount) within the limit of the amount of insurance coverage by each injury grade. The insurance clause provides that “if the insured fails to wear the safety belt while on board at the time of the accident, the driver’s seat or its subordinate seat shall be deducted from the amount of his own physical accident, and the amount equivalent to 10% of the back seat shall be deducted from the amount of his/her own physical accident, and the amount of reduction clause for a safety belt which provides that “if the insured does not wear the safety belt at the time of the accident, the Plaintiff would drive the above automobile while under influence and not wear the safety belt on the road.

In light of the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the above special contract for self-physical accidents is a kind of life insurance, and the condition of reduction in this case uses the expression of deduction, but it is a partial exemption clause because it does not pay part of the insurance money. However, it cannot be said that the failure of the plaintiff to wear the safety belt is an intentional cause of the insurance accident. Thus, the condition of reduction in this case is null and void contrary to the above provisions of the Commercial Act.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the instant reduction clause is valid, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the validity of the instant reduction clause, thereby making a judgment.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff, the part against the Plaintiff among the judgment below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)