The case holding that a mutual aid business with respect to the payment of the spreading amount to deceased members constitutes an insurance business;

The scope of insurance business stipulated in the Insurance Business Act shall be interpreted in response to its substance or economic nature, without resorting to its name or legal form. Therefore, if multiple people at risk of causing an accident of death, who are operated by the defendant, receive a certain amount of money in advance in preparation for their economic instability and receive a certain amount of money in the name of the membership fee and receive a certain amount of money in return for the death of a member, if the accident of death of a member occurs, it shall be deemed that the insurance business actually has the nature of the insurance business, and it shall not be deemed that it does not constitute an insurance business as stipulated in the Insurance Business Act, on the contrary to its unique nature of the insurance business.

Articles 1 and 5 of the Insurance Business Act

Supreme Court Decision 87Do2172 Decided January 31, 1989

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 87No1163 delivered on September 16, 1988

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the defendant organized an ordinary meeting against his family members with the title of the first welfare council, including active duty or return to the military, and even if his family members are able to join the insurance business, regardless of his age or health condition, and thereafter he can transfer his status as a member at any time after joining the insurance business. In principle, 10,000 won shall be paid at the expense of the member, and each member shall be paid 1,000 won under the pretext of his death. Where the defendant dies within 10 days from the date of his subscription, he shall be paid two times the premium paid at that time, and where the defendant dies within 10 days from the date of his death, 70,000 won shall be reduced by 10,000 won, regardless of the number of his death benefits paid at that time, and where the defendant dies after the lapse of 100,000 won, 10,000 won shall be restricted by the number of his death benefits paid at the time of his death.

However, in light of the purport of the Insurance Business Act which only requires the permission of the Minister of Finance and Economy in consideration of the effects of the insurance business on the state and the social and economic life due to the organization and sociality of the insurance business, and also provides various regulations on supervision, the scope of the insurance business under the Insurance Business Act shall be interpreted in response to its substance or economic nature, i.e., regardless of its name or legal form (see Supreme Court Decision 87Do2172, Jan. 31, 1989). Therefore, the insurance business regulated under the Insurance Business Act shall not be limited to the insurance business with its own meaning, but shall also be deemed as included in the similar insurance business.

However, according to the facts established by the court below, the first welfare association operated by the defendant paid a certain amount of money under the pretext of subscription fees and regular membership fees in preparation for the economic instability of many people who are at risk of suffering from an accident of death, and it can be said that it has the nature of insurance business in that it actually pays a certain amount of money in return to receive a certain amount of money when the accident of death of a member occurs, and that in the case of an accident of the death of a member, it is a certain amount of money in return for receiving a certain amount of money, and that in the case of an accident of the death of a member, it is a certain amount of money in return for receiving a certain amount of money, and it cannot be said that there is a part inconsistent with the unique meaning of insurance as cited

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles under Article 5 (1) of the Insurance Business Act, and it is reasonable to discuss this as it affects the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)