생명보험계약상 면책기간 내 피보험자의 정신질환으로 인한 자살에 대한 보험자의 재해사망보험금 지급의무 - 대법원 2016. 5. 12. 선고 2015다243347 판결, 대법원 2006. 3. 10. 선고 2005다49713 판결 -

Abstract

In a case regarding whether an insurer has to pay an accidental death benefit for a suicide under non compos metis within disclaimer period of suicide, Supreme Court Decision (2015Da243347) ruled that an intentional suicide does not fall within a category of insured accident due to lack of contingency, except a suicide under non compos metis prescribed in an exceptive clause. In addition, such Supreme Court Decision(2015Da243347) ruled that‘insurer’s duty of payment of accidental death benefit for a suicide under non compos metis’is one of concrete principles of Supreme Court based on Supreme Court Decision(2005Da49713). However, Supreme Court Decision(2005Da49713) did not recognize a suicide under non compos metis within disclaimer period of suicide as an insured accident based on suicide clause, but an insured accident as an accident. A suicide under non compos metis within disclaimer period of suicide has to be divided into two categories; (i) a suicide under mental diseases, and (ii) a suicide under impulsive circumstances derived from extreme excitement not based on mental diseases. The former may be categorized in an insured accident as an accident, and the latter may be categorized in an insured accident based on suicide clause. Such interpretation is based on the purpose of suicide clause and the principle of objective interpretation of clauses as well. As such, Supreme Court Decision(2015Da243347) recognized a suicide under non compos metis within disclaimer period of suicide. If not, the interpretation of Supreme Court Decision(2015Da243347) has to be reconsidered. In this sense, Supreme Court Decision (2005Da49713) has to be reconsidered whether it is regarded as one of concrete principles of Supreme Court. To analyse this matter, the related rulings in the future should be carefully examined.