Husband Wins Final Lawsuit Claiming 1.2 Billion Insurance Payout in 'Yeosu Geumodo' Case

Supreme Court Overturns and Remands, Changing Interest Calculation Date to After Appellate Court Judgment Date Only

The husband involved in the 'Yeosu Geumodo Incident,' who was accused of causing the death of his wife by getting out of the car while it was in neutral gear on the pier ramp and falling into the sea, has won the final lawsuit claiming insurance money against the insurance companies.

On the 2nd, the Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Cheon Dae-yeop) upheld the lower court's ruling ordering Meritz Fire & Marine Insurance, Lotte Insurance, and the National Credit Union Federation to pay a total of 1.2 billion KRW (100 million KRW, 10 million KRW, and 10 million KRW respectively) in the appeal trial of the insurance money claim lawsuit filed by Mr. Park.

However, the court ruled that the second trial's judgment on the start date for calculating delayed interest was incorrect, overturned the lower court's decision, and issued its own ruling.

SBS 'Unanswered Questions' broadcast screen capture.

Regarding the second trial court's judgment that it was difficult to view Mr. Park as intentionally staging the accident to kill his wife, the court stated, "There is no error in the lower court's judgment that violates the rules of logic and experience, exceeds the limits of free evaluation of evidence, or fails to conduct necessary investigations, nor is there any legal misinterpretation or precedent violation affecting the judgment concerning the accidental nature of the insurance incident, burden of proof, or the insured's intent."

Regarding the second trial court's judgment that it was difficult to see that Mr. Park entered into the insurance contracts with the purpose of fraudulently obtaining insurance money, the court also stated, "There is no error in the lower court's judgment that violates the rules of logic and experience, exceeds the limits of free evaluation of evidence, or involves misinterpretation of Civil Act Article 103, violation of public order and morals, or legal misinterpretation or precedent violation concerning the 'purpose of fraudulently obtaining insurance money' that would affect the judgment."

Furthermore, the court found no problem with the lower court's judgment that Mr. Park's false statements about his wife's annual income and housing type when entering into the insurance contracts were not important contract details and thus could not be considered insurance contract formation by fraud, nor that the insurance contracts were rescinded due to false disclosure. For the same reason, the court agreed with the lower court's rejection of some insurance companies' claims to offset their tort or breach of contract damage claims against Mr. Park with their insurance payment obligations.

However, the court ruled that the lower court's calculation of delayed interest at an annual rate of 12% under the Act on the Promotion of Litigation from December 10, 2020, the day after the insurance companies received the copy of the complaint, was incorrect.

The court stated, "Although the defendants' (insurance companies') claims were rejected by the lower court, since they were accepted in the first trial, those claims have reasonable grounds. Therefore, even if the lower court fully accepted the plaintiff's claims, under Article 3, Paragraph 2 of the Act on the Promotion of Litigation, the delayed damage interest rate stipulated in Paragraph 1 of the same article cannot be applied until the date of the lower court's judgment. Nevertheless, the lower court applied the delayed damage interest rate from the day after the service of the complaint copy until full payment, which is a misapplication of the law regarding the application of Article 3, Paragraph 2 of the Act on the Promotion of Litigation and affected the judgment," it pointed out.

This case saw the first trial result completely overturned in the second trial. Therefore, the point at which the defendant insurance companies recognized their obligation to pay insurance money to Mr. Park through litigation should be considered the date of the second trial judgment, which overturned the first trial's ruling, and thus the starting point for applying delayed interest should be the day after the second trial judgment.

Mr. Park was arrested and indicted on charges of murder and violation of the Special Act on the Treatment of Traffic Accidents for causing the death of his wife, Ms. A (47 at the time of death), by driving a Genesis passenger car into the sea at the Jikpo Village pier on Geumodo Island, Yeosu City, Jeollanam-do, around 10 p.m. on December 31, 2018.

At the time, Mr. Park and his wife were at the pier. While reversing, he hit the guardrail designed to prevent falling and got out alone from the driver's seat to check the car's condition. The prosecution judged that opening the rear window by 7 cm before getting out, citing a smell from the car, was an act intended to make the car sink faster.

The first trial in the criminal case recognized Mr. Park's guilt for murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment but did not separately judge the violation of the Special Act on the Treatment of Traffic Accidents (causing death). However, the second trial acquitted him of murder, found him guilty of violating the Special Act on the Treatment of Traffic Accidents, and sentenced him to three years in prison. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the ruling.

At that time, the court stated, "Although there are suspicious circumstances, it is difficult to exclude reasonable doubt that the victim's death was not caused by Mr. Park's intentional act," maintaining the lower court's judgment.

After being acquitted of murder by the Supreme Court, Mr. Park filed a claim for his wife's death insurance money against the insurance companies, but when the insurers refused payment, he filed a lawsuit.

Mr. Park had subscribed to six insurance policies before the accident, including two policies naming himself as the beneficiary two months before the accident. Some of these policies changed the beneficiary to himself after registering the marriage about 20 days before the accident.

Previously, the first trial court ruled that the civil trial was not bound by the criminal trial's conclusion and recognized Mr. Park's intentional murder, dismissing all his insurance money claims.

At that time, the court pointed out, "It is very unusual and difficult to understand the reason for prioritizing changing the beneficiaries of various insurance policies immediately after the marriage registration, at a time when he had not even properly greeted his family."

However, the result was completely reversed in the second trial.

The second trial court judged that there was no direct evidence that Mr. Park killed his wife and ruled that the defendant insurance companies must pay the insurance money to Mr. Park.

The court stated, "Although the defendant visited the accident site, the pier, twice before the accident, staying only 5 and 8 minutes respectively, it is difficult to believe that he had previously identified the critical point on the ramp where the vehicle could slip on its own. Also, it seems difficult to reverse a passenger car at around 11 p.m. on the day of the incident, at the end of the breakwater with no lighting, hit the guardrail to prevent falling, and then stop precisely at that location."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.