trực tiếp bóng đá hôm naySupreme Court Decision 2011Da54631, 54648 Decided June 13, 2013 about Insurance Proceeds

Main Issues and Holdings

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

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

Summary of Decision

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

[2] If trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay insured differs from policyholder, barring special circumstance where policyholder already knew or should have known personal matters or physical condition only trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay insured himself/herself could know accurately due to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay relation with trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay insured, a policyholder cannot be deemed as grossly negligent merely because s/he did not ask trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay insured actively and make disclosure. Further insurance contract requires policyholder as well as trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay insured respectively to notify important matters to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay insurer. Moreover, if trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay method of disclosing trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay insured’s personal matters is to check trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay answer “yes” or “no,” a policyholder’s answer of choosing “no” does not necessarily mean absence of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay 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 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Commercial Act, Article 288 of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Civil Procedure Act /

[2] Article 651 of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Commercial Act

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

Article 288 of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Civil Procedure Act (Facts not Requiring Attestation) trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay facts confessed by trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay parties in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay court and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay evident facts do not require any attestation: Provided, That confession contrary to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay 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 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay court below Seoul High Court Decision 2010Na94917, 94924 decided June 9, 2011

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

Reasoning trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay grounds of appeal are examined.

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

Especially if trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay insured differs from policyholder, barring special circumstance where trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay policyholder already knew or should have known personal matters or physical condition only trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay insured himself/herself could know accurately due to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay relation with trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay insured, a policyholder cannot be deemed as grossly negligent merely because s/he did not ask trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay insured actively and make disclosure. Further insurance contract requires policyholder as well as trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay insured respectively to notify important matters to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay insurer. Moreover, if trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay method of disclosing trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay insured’s personal matters is to check trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay answer “yes” or “no,” a policyholder’s answer of choosing “no” does not necessarily mean absence of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay 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, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay court below held that policyholder Nonparty 1 or her agent Nonparty 2 did not know that trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay 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 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay above legal principle, we don’t accept trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay judgment below as it is.

A. First, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay judgment below reasoning and evidence submitted to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay court below showed trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay following circumstances. At this case’s insurance contract formation, policyholder (Defendant’s mother) Nonparty 1 lived in Gyeongnam, Kimhae; trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay above Nonparty 1’s agent in insurance contract formation (Defendant’s aunt Nonparty 2) lived in Busan; and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay 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 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay diagnosis was serious enough to get treatment.

At this case’s insurance contract formation, Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant (“Plaintiff”)’s agent Nonparty 3 had trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay above Nonparty 2 fill out trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay 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 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay insured should affix “signature” at its bottom, but Nonparty 3 received signature only from Nonparty 2, and neither received signature from trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay insured Defendant herself nor inquired as to matters in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay question.

B. We examine trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay facts In light of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay 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. trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay disclosure form requires that trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay insured Defendant’s physical condition should be asked to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay insured in addition to policyholder and signature must be obtained from trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay insured himself/herself. Thus just because Nonparty 1 or 2 did not actively inquire Defendant’s recent diagnosis when filling out trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay above contract form and stated trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay 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 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay 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 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay misapprehension of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay legal principle as to gross negligence and erred in insufficient deliberation and determination, which affected trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay conclusion of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay judgment. trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay ground of appeal assigning this error has merit.

4. Therefore, without examining Defendant’s remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay judgment below. trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay case is remanded to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay 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