The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court determined as follows: (a) the deceased’s death by selling the neck constitutes a case where the death resulted in death in a situation where it is impossible to make a free decision due to mental fission.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, each of the insurance contracts of this case includes the following facts: (a) in the event the insured died within one year from the date of the accident as a direct result of a sudden and remote accident resulting in bodily injury to his body during the insurance period; (b) the insured’s intentional act, self-harm, attempted suicide, suicide, criminal act or violence under the Criminal Act; (c) the insured’s disease or mental disorder; and (d) injury caused by the insured’s mental illness (hereinafter “instant exemption clause”).

B. In a case where an insurance contract which covers the death as an insured event provides for suicide as an exemption from liability of the insurer, the suicide refers to the act of intentionally cutting one’s own life for its purpose and causing the death result by intentionally cutting it, and it does not include the case where the insured caused the death result in a situation where it is impossible to make a free decision due to mental illness, etc. Therefore, if the insured’s direct cause of death occurred under a situation where it is impossible to make a free decision, then the act of causing the death result is an external factor.