kết quả bóng đá trực tiếpSupreme Court Decision 2011Da54631, 54648 Decided June 13, 2013 about Insurance Proceeds

Main Issues and Holdings

[1] Meaning of “gross negligence” by kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp policyholder or kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp insured, which is an element for termination of insurance contract by kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp insurer due to breach of duty of disclosure, kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp criterion to determine such negligence, and kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp party to bear kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp burden of proof (i.e., kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp insurer)

[2] Where kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp insured differs from policyholder, whether policyholder is grossly negligent merely because policyholder does not disclose personal matters or physical conditions which only kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp insured himself/herself could know accurately by actively asking kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp insured (negative in principle)

Summary of Decision

[1] If a policyholder or kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp insured, with intent or gross negligence, fails to disclose or misrepresents material fact at kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp time of making an insurance contract, kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp insurer may terminate kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp contract within a certain period (Article 651 of kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp Commercial Act). Gross negligence here means unawareness of presence of material fact with considerable carelessness or unawareness of disclosure duty as to kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp fact with a wrong decision regarding its importance. Gross negligence is determined in light of all circumstances such as insurance contract contents, importance of kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp matter to be disclosed, circumstance leading to insurance contract formation, and relation between kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp insurer and kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp insured, and shall be determined individually and specifically in light of social norms. kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp insurer who wants to terminate kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp insurance contract based on breach of disclosure duty bears kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp burden of proof.

[2] If kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp insured differs from policyholder, barring special circumstance where policyholder already knew or should have known personal matters or physical condition only kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp insured himself/herself could know accurately due to kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp relation with kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp insured, a policyholder cannot be deemed as grossly negligent merely because s/he did not ask kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp insured actively and make disclosure. Further insurance contract requires policyholder as well as kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp insured respectively to notify important matters to kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp insurer. Moreover, if kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp method of disclosing kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp insured’s personal matters is to check kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp answer “yes” or “no,” a policyholder’s answer of choosing “no” does not necessarily mean absence of kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp fact. S/he could have meant that s/he does not know about it. Thus it cannot be easily determined from such expression alone that a duty of disclosure was breached with intent or gross negligence.

Reference Provisions

[1] Article 651 of kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp Commercial Act, Article 288 of kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp Civil Procedure Act /

[2] Article 651 of kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp Commercial Act

Article 651 of kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp Commercial Act (Termination of Contracts due to Breach of Duty of Disclosure) If, at kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp time of making an insurance contract, a policyholder or kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp insured, with intent or gross negligence, failed to disclose or misrepresented material facts, kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp insurer may terminate kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp contract within one month after it becomes aware of kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp non-disclosure or misrepresentation or within three years after kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp contract was made: Provided, That this shall not apply where at kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp time of making kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp insurance contract kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp insurer knew kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp non-disclosure or misrepresentation or failed to do so due to gross negligence.

Article 288 of kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp Civil Procedure Act (Facts not Requiring Attestation) kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp facts confessed by kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp parties in kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp court and kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp evident facts do not require any attestation: Provided, That confession contrary to kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp truth may be revoked when it is attested that it has been made due to any mistake.

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)-Appellee Meritz Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Hyowon, Attorneys Choi Jung-hyun, et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)-Appellant Defendant

Judgment of kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp court below Seoul High Court Decision 2010Na94917, 94924 decided June 9, 2011

Disposition kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp judgment below is reversed. kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

Reasoning kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp grounds of appeal are examined.

1. If a policyholder or kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp insured, with intent or gross negligence, fails to disclose or misrepresents material fact at kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp time of making an insurance contract, kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp insurer may terminate kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp contract within a certain period (Article 651 of kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp Commercial Act). Gross negligence here means unawareness of presence of material fact with considerable carelessness or unawareness of disclosure duty as to kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp fact with a wrong decision regarding its importance. Gross negligence is determined in light of all circumstances such as insurance contract contents, importance of kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp matter to be disclosed, circumstance leading to insurance contract formation, and relation between kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp insurer and kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp insured, and shall be determined individually and specifically in light of social norms. kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp insurer who wants to terminate kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp insurance contract based on breach of disclosure duty bears kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp burden of proof.

Especially if kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp insured differs from policyholder, barring special circumstance where kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp policyholder already knew or should have known personal matters or physical condition only kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp insured himself/herself could know accurately due to kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp relation with kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp insured, a policyholder cannot be deemed as grossly negligent merely because s/he did not ask kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp insured actively and make disclosure. Further insurance contract requires policyholder as well as kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp insured respectively to notify important matters to kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp insurer. Moreover, if kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp method of disclosing kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp insured’s personal matters is to check kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp answer “yes” or “no,” a policyholder’s answer of choosing “no” does not necessarily mean absence of kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp fact. S/he could have meant that s/he does not know about it. Thus it cannot be easily determined from such expression alone that a duty of disclosure was breached with intent or gross negligence.

2. According to judgment below, kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp court below held that policyholder Nonparty 1 or her agent Nonparty 2 did not know that kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp insured Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff (“Defendant”) was diagnosed with thyroid nodule on June 12, 2007 prior to this case’s insurance contract formation, but they could have confirmed diagnosis by calling Defendant, but did not do so. Thus it held that false disclosure was gross negligence.

3. In light of kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp above legal principle, we don’t accept kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp judgment below as it is.

A. First, kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp judgment below reasoning and evidence submitted to kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp court below showed kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp following circumstances. At this case’s insurance contract formation, policyholder (Defendant’s mother) Nonparty 1 lived in Gyeongnam, Kimhae; kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp above Nonparty 1’s agent in insurance contract formation (Defendant’s aunt Nonparty 2) lived in Busan; and kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp insured Defendant lived in Seoul Gangdonggu, Cheonho-dong. Defendant was diagnosed with thyroid nodule on June 12, 2007 which is about 15 days before June 29, 2007 when this case’s insurance contract was formed. Statistically, woman’s thyroid nodule prevalence rate is 25.3% ~ 42.2% in high definition thyroid ultrasound. No circumstance was shown that Defendant promptly may have informed family that kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp diagnosis was serious enough to get treatment.

At this case’s insurance contract formation, Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant (“Plaintiff”)’s agent Nonparty 3 had kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp above Nonparty 2 fill out kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp document “disclosure prior to contract formation” listing items subject to duty of disclosure. One of them is question whether Defendant “diagnosed within recent 3 months by doctor through medical exam or test, and as a result, treated, hospitalized, received surgery, or took medicine.” Nonparty 2 checked “no” between “yes” and “no” and submitted it. policyholder and kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp insured should affix “signature” at its bottom, but Nonparty 3 received signature only from Nonparty 2, and neither received signature from kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp insured Defendant herself nor inquired as to matters in kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp question.

B. We examine kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp facts In light of kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp above legal principle. Although Nonparty 1 is Defendant’s mother, and Nonparty 2 is Defendant’s aunt, it cannot be easily determined that at this case’s insurance contract formation, they knew Defendant’s thyroid nodule diagnosis as a matter of course or easily. kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp disclosure form requires that kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp insured Defendant’s physical condition should be asked to kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp insured in addition to policyholder and signature must be obtained from kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp insured himself/herself. Thus just because Nonparty 1 or 2 did not actively inquire Defendant’s recent diagnosis when filling out kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp above contract form and stated kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp fact differently, it did not become violation of gross negligence or disclosure duty. Furthermore, although Nonparty 2 as policyholder’s agent checked Defendant’s diagnosis with “no,” it is questionable whether it necessarily means absence of diagnosis. Thus, circumstance presented by kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp court below alone does not justify finding of gross negligence in Nonparty 1 or 2’s false disclosure regarding Defendant’s thyroid nodule diagnosis three months prior to this case’s insurance contract.

C. This judgment below erred in kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp misapprehension of kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp legal principle as to gross negligence and erred in insufficient deliberation and determination, which affected kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp conclusion of kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp judgment. kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp ground of appeal assigning this error has merit.

4. Therefore, without examining Defendant’s remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp judgment below. kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp case is remanded to kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is decided as per Disposition by all participating Justices’ assent.

Justices

Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)

Yang Chang-soo

Park Byoung-dae (Justice in charge)

Ko Young-han