보험금 부정취득 목적으로 체결한 누적적 보험계약의 효력에 관한 법적 연구 — 캄보디아 아내 사망 사건을 중심으로 —

The recent case of a claimant who has been acquitted of a criminal in connection with a life insurance contract has drawn attention from society. This is the case where the husband, who was on the dock in a car with his wife, hit the fall prevention rail and got off alone with saying that he would check out the condition of the car and placing transmission in a neutral, so that the car on the ramp fell into the sea and his wife died. Six insurance policies worth 1.7 billion won were signed up in the name of the wife, and the name of the beneficiary was changed to the name of the husband after the marriage registration. In response, the prosecution indicted her husband on charges of murder and other charges, judging that he pushed the car into the sea after leaving the transmission in a neutral, but the court refused to admit the murder. Another similar case is also emerging as the issue of whether it is possible to exercise the right to claim insurance. With the wife as an insured person, if the insured wife dies, such as joining a large number of life insurance with the defendant as an insurance beneficiary, including the death benefit of up to 3.1 billion won, the defendant is a case of roughly 25 life insurance policies in the same way to more than 10 insurance companies from that point to around 2014. In this case, the Supreme Court did not admit guilty of murder and fraud. Contrary to the criminal law perspective, there is a discussion on the applicability of Article 103 of the Civil Act to the insurance contract for the purpose of fraudulent acquisition of insurance money. In case of criminal litigation based on the principle of evidence law, it is required to be very strict in the degree and method of proof, while civil litigation related to insurance accidents should be sought to estimate indirect facts through highly probable experience rules. This paper deals with the contents of Article 103 of the Civil Act, which is the invalidity of multiple insurance contracts aimed at fraudulent acquisition of insurance premiums. In the case of multiple insurance contracts, it examines the contents of the Supreme Court ruling to which Article 103 of the Civil Act applies, analyzes the factors that can be judged as the anti-sociality of the multi-insurance contract derived from the relevant ruling, and suggests a plan to invalidate the relevant insurance contract itself in case of the purpose of fraudulent acquisition of insurance money.