[2] The case holding that the insurer does not have an obligation to explain the terms and conditions of the insurer on the ground that the policyholder had been sufficiently aware of the content of the insurer's duty of disclosure

[2] The case holding that the insurer rejected a policyholder's defense that the insurer did not fulfill its duty to explain the terms and conditions, and terminated the insurance contract on the ground of the policyholder's breach of the duty of disclosure, on the ground that the policyholder was aware of the content of the insurance clauses on the duty of disclosure of the principal driver and was falsely notified of the principal driver for saving the insurance

1. According to the judgment of the court below, the non-party 1 purchased dump trucks of this case and he intentionally notified the non-party 6 who is the owner of the truck of this case to the non-party 4 (the wife of the non-party 1) who is the owner of the truck of this case. The non-party 1 at the time of the above subscription decided that the non-party 1 would have Non-party 5 drive the truck of this case under the above non-party 5's age and premium rate is lower than the above non-party 5's 6th degree. The non-party 1 was driving the truck of this case without the non-party 5, and the non-party 1 would have caused the traffic accident of this case on December 7, 199, and the non-party 1 notified the non-party 1 of the fact that the insurance contract of this case was terminated on the ground that the non-party 1 notified the non-party 1 of the fact that the insurance contract of this case was terminated on December 16, 19994.

In light of the records, the court below's finding the above non-party 2 as the representative of the non-party 1 is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of law such as illegality of fact-finding and misapprehension of legal principles as to agency without evidence as alleged in the lawsuit.

Although the plaintiff and the defendant alleged that the above non-party 2 was the representative of the above non-party 1, the court below acknowledged the non-party 2 as the representative of the non-party 1. However, since the facts in this case are the fact of entering into an insurance contract and whether the contract was concluded by the principal or by his representative, the facts in this case are nothing more than an indirect fact that the contract was concluded by the agent, unlike the allegations by the parties, it cannot be viewed as unlawful. The arguments are without merit.

2. According to the records, the court below knew that the non-party 1, who delegated the conclusion of the insurance contract of this case to the non-party 2, did not designate the non-party 5 to drive the truck of this case as the principal driver and delivered the non-party 2 with the non-party 6's driver's license in order to enter into the insurance contract with the non-party 6 as the principal driver. The above non-party 2 obtained the non-party 6's driver's license and presented the non-party 3 with the non-party 6 as the principal driver, and designated the non-party 6 as the principal driver, and paid the 1,006,70 won reduced according to the conclusion of the insurance contract, and the above non-party 4 and the non-party 2 as his representative knew that the insurance premium amount varies according to the age of the principal driver and the career of the principal driver, and did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the non-party 1's career or the insurance premium rate.

In addition, Article 638-3 of the Commercial Act provides the insurer's duty to explain the terms and conditions of an insurance contract with prior knowledge of the existence of an insurance contract and the purport of the legislation is to protect the interests of the policyholders by allowing each party to apply an insurance contract with the knowledge of the existence of an insurance contract in advance. In full view of the fact that the insurance clause is binding on the parties to the contract because the parties to the contract agreed to include it in the contents of the contract, if the policyholders or their agents are well aware of the contents of the terms and conditions, the terms and conditions are immediately the contents of the contract and are binding on the parties. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the insurer does not need to separately explain the contents of the terms and conditions. In this regard, if the policyholders or their agents have been well aware of the fact that the concept of the principal driver or their agents differ depending on the main driver's or the insurance career, the insurer does not need to explain them again, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the duty to explain and the duty to notify.

3. It is pointed out that the insurer would have waived the right to terminate the insurance contract in a case where the insurer paid the insurance money without any reservation upon knowing the policyholder's violation of the duty of disclosure. In this case, the Defendant was aware that the insurer paid the insurance money for the accident caused by the truck of this case, which occurred on September 8, 1994, prior to the accident of this case. However, according to the records, unless there is any circumstance to deem at the time that the Defendant was aware of the non-party 1's non-party 1's failure to notify or was unaware of due to gross negligence, the Defendant may exercise the right to terminate the insurance contract on the ground of the above non-party 1's failure. The judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law such as protection of trust, prohibition of abuse of rights, and misapprehension of legal principles as to

4. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)