면책기간 경과 후의 자살에 관한 최근 판결의 검토와 자살사례 증가에 대한 보험자의 대응방안

In the recent Supreme Court decision, 2021da231406, delivered on April 28, 2022, it was found that the insured had died by suicide after purchasing multiple insurance policies. When the insured was found dead, it was more than a month after the period of the suicide exclusion specified in the insurance policy had passed. The bereaved family of the insured claimed the insurance payment against the insurer. In this case, the court held that the insurer should pay the insurance money for suicide if the insured committed suicide after the suicide exclusion period had passed. The court only held that the multiple insurance contracts, in this case, were not contracts for fraudulent purposes without making a detailed judgment on whether the insurer can be exempted from liability and, if possible, what requirements it must meet. In this case, the insurer claimed that the insurance contract would be invalidated by applying Article 103 of the Civil Act, but the court rejected this claim. If an insurance contract in this case is recognized as a contract for a fraudulent purpose, the insurance contract is void and the insurer is exempted from the liability. Thus, the suicide exclusion clause and the insurance contract for fraudulent purposes are deeply related. The court dealt with both issues in this case, but did not actively demonstrated whether insurance money should be paid according to the suicide clause after the indemnity period has elapsed, even if the insurance contract is invalidated due to a fraudulent contract. However, there is a possibility that the general public may be misunderstood the outcome of this case as some media argue that the judgment in this case is a decision that insurance money must be paid unconditionally for suicides after the expiration of the exemption period. However, there is a risk of seducing the insured to commit suicide. Some media argue that the court’s decision means that insurance money must be unconditionally paid if the insured committed suicide after the disclaimer period specified in the suicide exclusion clause has passed. In Korea, in the early 2000s, the issues of suicide exclusion in the insurance policy were highlighted. At that time, in our society, whether or not to pay disaster insurance for suicides was considerable social controversy. The claim related to the suicide exclusion was the most fiercely contested in the history of insurance in Korea, along with the immediate annuity case, which is currently being litigated. Nevertheless, the controversy regarding the suicide exclusion clause decreased with the decision of the Supreme Court 2015da243347 on May 12, 2016, and the 2016 Da218713 and 218720 on September 30, 2016. Only one paper regarding the issue was published in 2021. However, with the Supreme Court ruling on April 28, the need to discuss various related issues has been raised again. This paper introduces the judgment of the Supreme Court on April 28 and also reviews whether the suicide exclusion clause of the insurance policy can take precedence over the ‘juristic acts contrary to social order’ stated in Article 103 of the Civil Act. In Korea, where the suicide rate is the highest in the world according to OECD statistics, it would be unfortunate if the number of suicide attempts for insurance money increased even a little. In this paper, specific measures to prevent this in advance will be reviewed from the perspective of the insurance contract. The specific prevention methods include (1) flexible interpretation of the exclusion clause of standard terms and conditions and individual product terms, especially the suicide exclusion clause after the exemption period has elapsed; (2) amendment of the standard terms and conditions to extend the exclusion period or leaving discretion to change the exclusion period in the insurer’s hand; (3) exemption of the insurer from liability for all suicides of the policyholder under the principles of Articles 659 and 732-2 of the Commercial Act, which stipulate the immunity of the insurer for intentional accidents; and (4) prevention of suicide aimed at insurance money through the extension of legal principles on fraudulent contracts, etc. In examining this issue, the author expressly referred to the discussion in Japan. Since Japan once had the highest suicide rate in the world, the discussion of suicide exclusion in the insurance policy was more active than in any other country. The paper also introduced the Japanese Supreme Court ruling, which has not yet been introduced to Korea, and discussions during the revision of the Japanese insurance law in 2010. It does not seem easy to return to the principle of insurers’ immunity for intentional accidents under the Commercial Act. The method of extending the exclusion period seems acceptable to adopt, but it seems uncertain whether or not it has an effect on preventing suicide. Ultimately, it seems necessary to make the requirements for multiple contracts for fraudulent acquisition more objective. Insurers also need to make efforts to filter out multiple contracts for fraudulent purposes with the help of the development of information technology. In addition, as a countermeasure to the insured's suicide, it is worth paying attention to the recent Supreme Court decision regarding the insurance contract case which confirmed that ‘termination right of contract based on the material grounds’ which has been recognized in civil contract cases can also be recognized in the insurance contract cases. According to the interpretation of Article 30 of the Japanese Insurance Law, excessive contracting or suicide is treated as a material ground that harms the good relationship between the contractual parties and make it impossible to maintain the contract any longer.