피보험자가 정신질환을 이유로 자살한 경우 면책조항에 관한 검토 - 대법원 2015. 6. 23. 선고 2015다5378 판결 -

Abstract

For more than ten years starting from year 2003, South Korea's suicide rate has been the highest amongst the OECD members. The extreme suicide rate has brought forth many social issues, including those related to the reception of insurance benefits. The life insurance standard clauses state that in exceptional circumstances, insurance companies are obliged to payout insurance to the survivors even when the insurant's death was self-induced. However, the lack of any law to enforce such regulations and the discrete exclusive criteria of insurance companies, has caused a dispute on whether the survivors can claim insurance when the insurant has committed suicide. The Supreme Court, on its verdict of June 23rd, 2015, proclaimed that ① although a death, which has been caused by an external factor during a period in which the insurant lacked free will, ought to be considered an insured peril, ② an exception clause, which distinguishes the insurant's mental illness as an exception to the insurant's suicide, cannot be regarded as an unfair term and ③ therefore, the insurer is released from the obligation to pay insurance proceeds of an insurance accident that occurred while the insurant was unable to make independent decisions as a result of suffering psychosis. The Supreme Court's verdict of viewing unwilled suicide as an insurance peril is valid. However, to claim the insurant's mental illness as an independent exception clause, violates the essences of insurances, and when regarding the common practices of insurance companies, it can be assumed that such policies will act against the benefits of the clients. As a result, it is predictable that there will be a continuous debate on the validity of the current verdict, which releases insurers from their obligation to pay insurance proceeds of insurance accidents that occur while the insurant lacks the ability to make independent decisions as an outcome of mental illness.