Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Insurance-period wording where the insured is deemed dead after a declaration of disappearance
Supreme Court, July 16, 2026, 2026Da201325 (judgment)
Case name: 보험금
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a farmer safety insurance policy pays a survivor benefit for death caused by a farming work safety accident 'during the insurance period', and the insured was swept away by a torrent in a river during the period but was deemed dead only on the expiry of the disappearance period after the policy had ended, is the benefit payable?
Holding
It may. Measured by the understanding of an average customer, the phrase 'during the insurance period' may qualify only the farming work safety accident or disease, so that the survivor benefit may be payable where the accident occurred during the period and the insured is deemed dead on a declaration of disappearance granted after the period ended, subject to the remand court deciding whether the accident is a farming work safety accident. Requiring both the accident and the resulting death inside the period is not the only construction with objectivity and reasonableness, so the court below misapplied the law on interpreting insurance terms and left the case insufficiently examined.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
평균적 고객의 이해가능성을 기준으로 위 약관의 문언을 살펴보았을 때, 위 약관의 ‘보험기간 중’이라는 문구가 ‘농업작업안전재해 또는 농업작업안전질병’만을 수식한다고 보아, 보험기간 중 농업작업안전재해가 발생하고 적어도 보험기간 종료 후 실종선고에 따라 사망한 것으로 간주되는 경우에도 유족급여금 지급사유라고 해석하는 것이 충분히 가능하고, 그러한 해석 또한 객관성과 합리성을 가지는데도
Unofficial English translation
When the wording of the said terms is examined on the basis of the comprehensibility of the average customer, the phrase "during the insurance term" in the said terms may sufficiently be interpreted as modifying only "an agricultural work safety accident or an agricultural work safety disease," so that a ground for payment of the survivor's benefit exists where an agricultural work safety accident occurs during the insurance term and the insured is at least deemed to have died pursuant to a declaration of disappearance after the expiration of the insurance term, and such interpretation also possesses objectivity and reasonableness, yet
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울서부지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Western District Court.
Form of the test
Existing test applied Stated in the decision
평균적 고객의 이해가능성을 기준으로 위 약관의 문언을 살펴보았을 때, 위 약관의 ‘보험기간 중’이라는 문구가 ‘농업작업안전재해 또는 농업작업안전질병’만을 수식한다고 보아, 보험기간 중 농업작업안전재해가 발생하고 적어도 보험기간 종료 후 실종선고에 따라 사망한 것으로 간주되는 경우에도 유족급여금 지급사유라고 해석하는 것이 충분히 가능하고
Unofficial English translation
When the wording of the said terms is examined on the basis of the comprehensibility of the average customer, the phrase "during the insurance term" in the said terms is construed as modifying only "an agricultural work safety accident or an agricultural work safety disease," so that it is sufficiently possible to interpret that a ground for payment of the survivor's benefit exists where an agricultural work safety accident occurs during the insurance term and the insured is at least deemed to have died pursuant to a declaration of disappearance after the expiration of the insurance term, and
Factors
- 개개 계약 당사자가 기도한 목적이나 의사를 참작하지 않고, 평균적 고객의 이해가능성을 기준으로 보험단체 전체의 이해관계를 고려하여 객관적·획일적으로 해석하여야 한다
- 약관 조항이 객관적으로 다의적으로 해석되고, 그 각각의 해석이 합리성이 있는 등 당해 약관의 뜻이 명백하지 아니한 경우에는 고객에게 유리하게 해석하여야 한다
- 민법 제27조는 실종기간을 1년 또는 5년으로 규정하고 있으므로
- 위 약관의 ‘보험기간 중’이라는 문구가 ‘농업작업안전재해 또는 농업작업안전질병’만을 수식한다고 보아
- 그러한 해석 또한 객관성과 합리성을 가지는데도
Unofficial English translation
• it must be construed objectively and uniformly, without taking into account the purposes or intentions sought by the individual parties to each contract, by considering the interests of the insured group as a whole on the basis of the comprehensibility of the average customer
• where a clause of the terms is objectively capable of more than one interpretation and each such interpretation is reasonable, in other words where the meaning of the said terms is not clear, it must be construed in favor of the customer
• Article 27 of the Civil Act prescribes the period of disappearance as 1 year or 5 years, and therefore
• the phrase "during the insurance term" in the said terms is construed as modifying only "an agricultural work safety accident or an agricultural work safety disease"
• such interpretation also possesses objectivity and reasonableness, yet
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2011. 4. 28. 선고 2011다1118 판결, 대법원 2018. 7. 24. 선고 2017다285109 판결, 대법원 2026. 4. 2. 선고 2025다211789 판결(공2026상, 1050)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2011Da1118 decided April 28, 2011, Supreme Court Decision 2017Da285109 decided July 24, 2018, Supreme Court Decision 2025Da211789 decided April 2, 2026 (Gong 2026 Sang, 1050)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2011. 4. 28. 선고 2011다1118 판결, 대법원 2018. 7. 24. 선고 2017다285109 판결, 대법원 2026. 4. 2. 선고 2025다211789 판결(공2026상, 1050)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the insured was swept away by a rapid current in a river while not engaged in farming work, can that accident still be a farming work safety accident that triggers the survivor benefit?
The remand judgment will show how the accident is tested against the definition of a farming work safety accident under the Act, which the Court left open. Any amendment to Article 27 or Article 28 of the Civil Code on the disappearance period, or a later decision on the same wording, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “If the insured was swept away by a rapid current in a river while not engaged in farming work, can that accident still be a farming work safety accident that triggers the survivor benefit?” vs Independent “Would the same interpretation cover an actual death after the policy period caused by an agricultural work disaster during that period, without a declaration of disappearance?”
The primary asks whether a river drowning while not engaged in farming work can still be a farming work accident. The independent asks whether an actual death after the period, without any declaration of disappearance, is covered by the same reading.
평균적 고객의 이해가능성을 기준으로 위 약관의 문언을 살펴보았을 때, 위 약관의 ‘보험기간 중’이라는 문구가 ‘농업작업안전재해 또는 농업작업안전질병’만을 수식한다고 보아, 보험기간 중 농업작업안전재해가 발생하고 적어도 보험기간 종료 후 실종선고에 따라 사망한 것으로 간주되는 경우에도 유족급여금 지급사유라고 해석하는 것이 충분히 가능하고, 그러한 해석 또한 객관성과 합리성을 가지는데도Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul Western District Court, in its judgment of 9 January 2026 (2025Na1358), left the first-instance dismissal standing. The insured was deemed dead on 2 August 2021, the expiry of the disappearance period, after the policy period had ended on 18 March 2021. It read Article 9(i) and Article 29(1) of the policy as requiring both the farming work safety accident and the resulting death to occur within the insurance period, so the claim failed on that requirement because the deemed death fell outside it; the court below did not decide whether the accident was a farming work safety accident.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that reading was not the only reasonable one. Article 10(1)(i) of the policy brings a declaration of disappearance within 'death' and deems death at the end of the period the court allows, and Article 27 of the Civil Code sets that period at one or five years, so for a farmer safety insurance usually written for one year the declaration and its effect will generally fall after the policy ends; the natural reading is that 'a declaration of disappearance granted during the insurance period' refers to the peril that caused it occurring during the period. The narrower reading would leave Article 10(1)(i) almost without application, Article 10(4) pays out on a disability that worsens after the period ends, and the protective purpose of the Act must be considered. The Court reversed and remanded, noting that the court below had not sufficiently examined whether being swept away by a torrent in a river was a farming work safety accident.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the insured in fact died within the insurance period, so that no question of a deemed death arises.
- A case in which the peril that caused the disappearance occurred outside the insurance period, so that the phrase does not reach it.
- A policy whose wording plainly admits only one construction, since the interpretation in favour of the customer applies only where the meaning remains unclear after the ordinary construction.
Record verification notes
Set the file against the policy's own wording first, Article 9(i) and Article 29(1) on the survivor benefit and Article 10(1)(i) on a declaration of disappearance, since the Court read them together. Then fix the date of the peril, here 2 August 2020, and the date of the declaration against the policy period of 18 March 2020 to 18 March 2021. Keep the point the Court did not decide apart from the holding: the record must still show whether the accident was a farming work safety accident, and the Court cited Supreme Court Decision 2025Da211789 among its authorities.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 보험약관의 해석에서 작성자 불이익의 원칙 [2] 농어업인의 안전보험 및 안전재해예방에 관한 법률에 따라 보험사업자로 선정된 갑 보험회사에 의하여 운영되고 있는 농업인안전보험에 관하여, 보험기간을 1년, 피보험자를 을 등으로 하는 단체보험계약이 체결되었고, 위 보험계약의 약관은 ‘피보험자가 보험기간 중 농업작업안전재해 또는 농업작업안전질병으로 사망한 경우’ 보험수익자에게 유족급여금을 지급하는 것으로 규정하였는데, 을이 보험기간 중 하천에서 급류에 휩쓸려 실종되었고, 보험기간이 종료된 후 실종선고가 이루어져 실종기간 만료일에 사망한 것으로 간주되었으며, 이후 보험수익자인 병이 갑 회사를 상대로 을의 사망에 따른 유족급여금 등의 지급을 구한 사안에서, 평균적 고객의 이해가능성을 기준으로 위 보험계약의 약관은 보험기간 중 농업작업안전재해가 발생하고 적어도 보험기간 종료 후 실종선고에 따라 사망한 것으로 간주되는 경우에도 유족급여금 지급사유라고 해석하는 것이 충분히 가능하고, 그러한 해석 또한 객관성과 합리성을 가지는데도, 을이 보험기간 중 실종선고에 따라 사망한 것으로 간주된 경우에만 갑 회사의 보험금지급의무가 발생한다고 본 원심판단에 법리오해 등의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The principle of construction against the drafter in the interpretation of insurance policy terms [2] In a case where, with respect to Agricultural Safety Insurance operated by insurance company A, which was selected as an insurance business operator pursuant to the Act on Safety Insurance and Safety Accident Prevention for Farmers and Fishermen, a group insurance contract was concluded for an insurance term of 1 year with B and others as the insured, and the terms of the said insurance contract stipulated that "where the insured dies as a result of an agricultural work safety accident or an agricultural work safety disease during the insurance term," a survivor's benefit shall be paid to the insurance beneficiary; B was swept away by a torrent in a river and went missing during the insurance term; after the insurance term had expired, a declaration of disappearance was made and B was deemed to have died on the date of expiration of the disappearance period; and thereafter C, the insurance beneficiary, sought payment from company A of the survivor's benefit and other amounts arising from B's death, in which case the said insurance contract's terms, measured by the comprehensibility of the average customer, may sufficiently be interpreted as providing a ground for payment of the survivor's benefit where an agricultural work safety accident occurs during the insurance term and the insured is at least deemed to have died pursuant to a declaration of disappearance after the expiration of the insurance term, and such interpretation also possesses objectivity and reasonableness, but the judgment of the court below held that company A's obligation to pay insurance benefits arises only where B was deemed to have died pursuant to a declaration of disappearance during the insurance term, and the Supreme Court held that the judgment below contained a misapprehension of legal principles or other error
Summary of the holding
[1] 보험약관은 신의성실의 원칙에 따라 해당 약관의 목적과 취지를 고려하여 공정하고 합리적으로 해석하되, 개개 계약 당사자가 기도한 목적이나 의사를 참작하지 않고, 평균적 고객의 이해가능성을 기준으로 보험단체 전체의 이해관계를 고려하여 객관적·획일적으로 해석하여야 한다. 위와 같은 해석을 거친 후에도 약관 조항이 객관적으로 다의적으로 해석되고, 그 각각의 해석이 합리성이 있는 등 당해 약관의 뜻이 명백하지 아니한 경우에는 고객에게 유리하게 해석하여야 한다. [2] 농어업인의 안전보험 및 안전재해예방에 관한 법률에 따라 보험사업자로 선정된 갑 보험회사에 의하여 운영되고 있는 농업인안전보험에 관하여, 보험기간을 1년, 피보험자를 을 등으로 하는 단체보험계약이 체결되었고, 위 보험계약의 약관은 ‘피보험자가 보험기간 중 농업작업안전재해 또는 농업작업안전질병으로 사망한 경우’ 보험수익자에게 유족급여금을 지급하는 것으로 규정하였는데, 을이 보험기간 중 하천에서 급류에 휩쓸려 실종되었고, 보험기간이 종료된 후 실종선고가 이루어져 실종기간 만료일에 사망한 것으로 간주되었으며, 이후 보험수익자인 병이 갑 회사를 상대로 을의 사망에 따른 유족급여금 등의 지급을 구한 사안에서, 위 보험계약의 약관은 피보험자의 ‘사망’에 ‘보험기간에 실종선고를 받은 경우’를 포함하고 그 경우 ‘법원에서 인정한 실종기간이 끝나는 때에 사망한 것으로 본다.’고 규정하고 있는데, 민법 제27조는 실종기간을 1년 또는 5년으로 규정하고 있으므로 보험기간을 보통 1년의 단기간으로 정하여 체결되는 농업인안전보험의 경우 실종선고는 대부분 보험기간 종료 후 이루어지게 될 것이고, 민법 제28조에 따라 실종선고를 받은 자는 실종기간이 만료한 때 사망한 것으로 간주되므로 실종선고의 효과 또한 대부분 보험기간 종료 후 발생할 것인 사정을 고려하면 ‘보험기간에 실종선고를 받은 경우’란 ‘보험기간에 실종선고의 원인이 된 위난이 발생한 경우’로 해석하는 것이 자연스럽다는 등의 이유로, 평균적 고객의 이해가능성을 기준으로 위 약관의 문언을 살펴보았을 때, 위 약관의 ‘보험기간 중’이라는 문구가 ‘농업작업안전재해 또는 농업작업안전질병’만을 수식한다고 보아, 보험기간 중 농업작업안전재해가 발생하고 적어도 보험기간 종료 후 실종선고에 따라 사망한 것으로 간주되는 경우에도 유족급여금 지급사유라고 해석하는 것이 충분히 가능하고, 그러한 해석 또한 객관성과 합리성을 가지는데도, 을이 보험기간 중 실종선고에 따라 사망한 것으로 간주된 경우에만 갑 회사의 보험금지급의무가 발생한다고 본 원심판단에 법리오해 등의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울서부지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Western District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 약관의 규제에 관한 법률 제5조 / [2] 약관의 규제에 관한 법률 제5조, 민법 제27조, 제28조, 농어업인의 안전보험 및 안전재해예방에 관한 법률 제1조, 제7조 제1항 제1호, 제9조 제1항 제5호
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger