정신질환자의 자살에 대한 보험회사의 면·부책 법리

Abstract

In the case of Korea, there is no provision that the insurance company be liable in the case of suicide of mentally ill persons as in VVG Article 161 (1) 2 of Germany. Therefore, the introduction of legal regulations like VVG Article 161 (1) 2 of Germany in our commercial law would be a way to save legal costs and save social costs by reducing the possibilities of conflicts and to increase predictability. However, there is a consensus opinion that it is not suicide that the insured person cuts off his life during mental illness or loss of mind or body and insurer should be liable for insurance benefits in the case. For that reason, Therefore, I think that the debate on the nature of the problem is not much different from that of Germany. What kind of rationale is supported by the insurance company's liability for the suicide of a mental patient? What is the level of mental illness required for the insurance company to take responsibility in such cases, and what is the concept of free decision-making? And I have come to the following conclusion: ① The concept of free decision-making is whether or not objectively and calmly comparing and examining the profit and loss, ② Our courts should also make sure that suicide is not to be excused by the insurer in the absence of free decision making due to mental illness, ③ If the insured person makes a rational suicide claiming that it is more advantageous to choose death, the insurer must be indemnified, ④ Whether or not the insured person has earned a profit or loss is subject to review on a case-by-case basis, and ⑤ The Supreme Court's ruling in 2015, judgment that the "insured person's mental or emotional state or mental illness" can not be regarded as an unfair term under act on the regulation of terms and conditions, is unreasonable, and should be amended because the Supreme Court misunderstood the nature of article 663 of the Commercial Code.