잘못 표시된 보험약관조항의 해석과 적용 - 서울중앙지방법원 제9민사부 2015. 10. 7. 선고 2015나14876 판결

It is very difficult to interpret and enforce the clause of the insurance policy which was made by insurer's negligence. In this paper, I reviewed the recent court's judgement on whether accidental death benefit should be paid in cases that the insured committed suicide. The opaque clause that the seems to provide accidental death benefit, even though the policy does not cover intentional acts such as suicide, give rises to disputes among contract parties. Commiting suicide is not an accidental death, so the insurance benefit must not be paid to the beneficiary of the insurance contract. But, in this case, because insurer had written as if the accidental death benefit is payable for the case of suicide, dispute arose between the insurance contract parties. The court's decision, which was subject to review, determined that there is no insurer's obligation to pay accidental death benefit to beneficiary of the life insurance if the insured committed suicide. The court judged that the clause of insurance policy in question is simply 'faulty demonstration'(falsa demonstratio) and irrespective of the real intention of the contract parties. We should review that the clause in question which is written differently from the intention of the insurer can be interpreted as the part of the insurance contract. I concluded that, without the agreement between contract parties to exclude the clause in question from the insurance contract, the accidental death benefit should be paid according to the policy.