수인의 보험수익자, 상속인과 보험금 분배에 관한 연구 -대법원 2025. 2. 20. 선고 2022다306048, 2022다306055, 2022다306062 판결에 대한 평석을 중심으로-

The insurance system is a system in which one helps all and all help one, and it is a system in which the policyholder helps each other when he or she is in financial difficulty. Among them, life insurance is a system in which insurance money is paid upon death and performs functions such as protecting the survivors. However, the designation, change, and confirmation of the beneficiary in life insurance raises various legal issues. If the policyholder designates another person as the beneficiary, it becomes insurance for another person. In a life insurance policy for others, who becomes the beneficiary when the beneficiary dies? In that case, if the policyholder exercises the right of redesignation, that person becomes the beneficiary. However, if the policyholder also dies, the beneficiary's heir becomes the beneficiary. In this case, the question is whether the concept of the beneficiary's heir includes the heir of that heir. Article 733, Paragraph 3 of the Commercial Act stipulates that if the beneficiary dies during the insurance period, the policyholder may designate a new beneficiary, and in this case, if the policyholder dies without exercising the right to designate, the beneficiary's heirs shall be the beneficiaries. The issue at issue is whether the beneficiary's heirs can be interpreted to include the beneficiary's heirs. Since the legal text simply says “heir”, it is reasonable to include not only the heir of the insurance beneficiary but also the successive heir (the heir of the heir of the insurance beneficiary) if he is alive at the time of the insured event. And the distribution ratio between them should be based on the statutory inheritance share. Therefore, the Supreme Court's decision is reasonable. And the heir of the existing insurance beneficiary should be judged based on the “time of death of the existing insurance beneficiary”, not the “time of death of the policyholder”. The time of death of the policyholder and the time of death of the beneficiary are conceptually different, and the heir of the beneficiary referred to in the legal text should be the heir based on the time of death of the beneficiary. If the policyholder and the insured both die and the beneficiary die, the heir of the beneficiary will receive the insurance money. However, the Supreme Court ruled that if the heir of the beneficiary's heir is alive, the heir of the beneficiary's heir will also be entitled to receive the insurance money. This can be evaluated as a position that considers specific validity in interpreting legal principles. In the future, various legal issues may arise in relation to receiving insurance money, and case law should serve as a compass in a direction that faithfully reflects the specific validity of the facts while remaining faithful to legal principles. In the process, we should study foreign laws and case law to form case law that is consistent with global consistency.