[Exclusive] Husband in 'Geumodo Case' Acquitted of Murder Admits 'Intentional Murder' in Civil Trial

Wife's 1.2 Billion Won Death Insurance Claim Lawsuit Dismissed
Contradicts Criminal Trial Verdict
"Hard to Consider Wife Performed Rescue Act"

Raising the vehicle involved in the 'Yeosu Geumodo Incident.' / Photo by SBS, screenshot from the broadcast of 'Unanswered Questions.'

[Asia Economy reporters Choi Seok-jin, legal affairs specialist, and Kim Dae-hyun] The civil court handling the insurance claim case involving the husband in the 'Yeosu Geumodo Incident,' who was acquitted of murder by the Supreme Court, recognized intentional murder.

According to the court on the 12th, the Civil Division 22 of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Jeong Jae-hee) ruled against Park in the trial held on the 9th, where he sued Meritz Fire & Marine Insurance, Lotte Insurance, and the National Credit Union Federation for 1.2 billion KRW in insurance claims.

In the ruling, the court stated that the civil trial is not bound by the conclusions of the criminal trial and judged that Park was guilty of intentional murder, dismissing the insurance claim.

The court cited a Supreme Court ruling, stating, "The facts recognized in the related criminal case judgment generally serve as strong evidence in civil trials unless there are special circumstances. However, if it is deemed difficult to adopt the factual findings of the criminal judgment as is, considering other evidence submitted in the civil trial, such findings may be rejected. Moreover, a guilty verdict in a criminal trial means there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt based on admissible evidence, while an acquittal means only that such proof is lacking, not that the non-existence of the facts charged has been proven."

It continued, "Furthermore, proof of facts in civil litigation is not a natural scientific proof that leaves no doubt whatsoever. Unless there are special circumstances, it is sufficient to prove a high probability that a fact existed by comprehensively reviewing all evidence based on experience."

The court explained, "If one intends to commit murder to receive insurance money, there may be no particular time constraints or deadlines. They may wait for an opportunity near the victim, who is usually someone with a special relationship, and even if they cannot be certain of the victim's death, they may seize an opportunity to easily attribute the death to an accidental cause and act immediately. In many cases, the method of the crime may appear impulsive or spontaneous to disguise it as an unintended fatal accident."

It added, "For the plaintiff to receive insurance money from this incident, numerous coincidental circumstances must coincide, including the conclusion of each insurance contract, subsequent marriage registration, changes in the insurance beneficiary, and the plaintiff’s negligence in the incident. As previously noted, the possibility that this accident occurred coincidentally under all these combined factors is extremely low. Even if the accident itself involved many impulsive and accidental elements, this does not prevent recognizing the plaintiff’s likelihood of intentionally causing the accident."

The court pointed out, "It is highly unusual and difficult to understand why the plaintiff prioritized changing the insurance beneficiaries of various insurances immediately after marriage registration, at a time when he had not even properly greeted his family."

Additionally, the court concluded that it is difficult to acknowledge that Park performed rescue actions to save his wife at the time of the accident.

The court stated, "It is also difficult to recognize that the plaintiff actually attempted to rescue the deceased," adding, "Whether the plaintiff attempted to rescue the deceased is not directly related to this incident but serves as material to assess the credibility of the plaintiff’s claims."

It further noted, "The deceased reported to 119 at approximately 10:56:30 p.m. on the day of the incident via her mobile phone that 'the car is sinking,' then said 'Ah, I’m drowning' around 11:00:38 p.m., and stopped responding after sounds of water intake at 11:00:50 p.m. The plaintiff testified that the deceased called out 'oppa' (older brother) and that he called her name and jumped into the sea, but there is no indication of the plaintiff’s presence in the deceased’s report."

The court observed, "According to CCTV footage from Jikpo Village, the plaintiff was seen moving at a relatively slow pace while looking toward the fall site between 10:57:20 p.m. and 10:57:41 p.m., then suddenly started moving quickly only after reaching a point where Jikpo Village became visible after turning a corner. The distance from the dock to the CCTV installation point is about 213.8 meters, so it appears the plaintiff had left the accident scene around the time the deceased called 119."

Moreover, the court stated, "An experiment measuring the time from sea entry to sinking of a vehicle of the same model as the involved car showed that the test vehicle floated for about five minutes after entering the sea before sinking from the front. The plaintiff ran quickly toward the bent breakwater at 10:59:20 p.m. after asking for help at a guesthouse’s convenience store. The plaintiff shouted 'OO, OO, open the back door' and tried to swim to the car, which had an unlocked rear door. Considering the time required for sinking, it is highly unlikely that the plaintiff actually performed the rescue activities he claimed immediately after the car plunged into the sea."

The court added, "Assuming the car rolled down on its own from the critical point, it would take about 5.4 seconds for the driver, who was on the right side of the rear bumper, to notice the car moving, get into the driver’s seat, and apply the brakes. During this time, the car would have moved only about 2 meters. Therefore, reboarding the car to brake while it was rolling down would have been the most effective rescue method."

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, A (aged 47 at the time of death), by driving a Genesis passenger car into the sea at the Jikpo Village dock in Geumodo, Yeosu, Jeollanam-do, around 10 p.m. on December 31, 2018.

At the time, Park was at the dock with his wife. While reversing, he hit the guardrail meant to prevent falling and got out alone from the driver’s seat to check the car’s condition. Because the car’s gear was left in neutral on a slope, the car carrying his wife fell into the sea, and she ultimately drowned.

After the accident, it was revealed that Park, who held a Meritz Insurance agent license, had taken out six insurance policies with his wife as the insured, falsely inflating her annual salary to increase the insurance payout. He also changed the insurance beneficiary to himself after registering the marriage about 20 days before the accident, making him a suspect in a murder case motivated by insurance money.

In particular, the prosecution judged that Park’s act of opening the rear window by 7 cm before getting out of the car, citing a smell, was intended to make the car sink faster.

The first trial convicted Park of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. However, the second trial acquitted him of murder due to insufficient evidence of intentional killing and sentenced him to three years in prison for violating the Special Act on the Treatment of Traffic Accidents (causing death). The Supreme Court also upheld the second trial’s judgment.

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

Article 659, Paragraph 1 of the Commercial Act (Insurer’s Exemption) states, "If the insurance accident arises from the intentional act or gross negligence of the policyholder, insured, or beneficiary, the insurer is not liable to pay the insurance amount."

In other words, if the car accident is recognized as intentional murder by Park, he cannot receive insurance money.

In this lawsuit, attorneys Kim Jae-young and Lee Joo-eun from the law firm Taepyungyang and attorneys Nam Dong-hwan and Lee Eun-sung from Daeryuk Aju represented Meritz Insurance and secured a victory. Park’s legal representation was handled by the law firm Dongin.

Attorney Kim Jae-young of Taepyungyang said, "The Supreme Court’s position is that civil trials are not bound by criminal trial results, but it is rare in practice for civil courts to reach conclusions completely opposite to criminal judgments. The court carefully reviewed the evidence already submitted and additional evidence presented in the civil court to systematically refute the reasons why the murder charge was denied in the criminal trial."

The 'Yeosu Geumodo Murder Case' attracted public attention and was featured on SBS’s investigative program 'Unanswered Questions.'