[2] Whether the exemption clause of "damage caused by a violation of the Acts and subordinate statutes or other rules" under the Act on the Supplementary Clauses of Equipment among the General Insurance for Movables applies only to the case of "violation of the serious Acts and subordinate statutes or rules" (affirmative), and whether the provision of the said Acts and subordinate statutes applies only to the case of a non-licensed driver's act under the explicit or implied approval of the policyholder, etc. (affirmative)

[3] The case holding that, in case where a policyholder of the comprehensive movable insurance had his employee operate the heavy equipment without obtaining a license, the operation without a license constitutes a serious violation of the law and constitutes a violation of the law and was conducted under the approval of the policyholder, it constitutes an exemption from liability under paragraph

[2] Where a comprehensive movable insurance policy provides that "damage caused by breach of the laws or regulations or other rules" as part of the insurance contract as an exemption from liability as an insurer's insurance contract, it appears to be a ground for exclusion from the insurer's coverage even though there is no causation between the violation of the laws or regulations and the occurrence of the loss, considering the situation that it is a violation of the regulations or other rules. If a comprehensive insurance policy provides that "loss caused by the violation of the laws or regulations or regulations" as part of the insurance contract is excluded from the subject of the insurance without any limitation on all accidents caused by the violation of the statutes or other rules, it is unfair that the insurer is exempted from liability in cases of minor violation of the laws or regulations or regulations which are not serious violation of the laws or regulations, and therefore, in cases of a violation of the laws or regulations, it is inevitable to view that the above provision is unfair in light of the principle of trust and good faith, and thus, it is unreasonable to interpret that the act of insurance accident or the act of insurance accident without permission or the act of insurance accident without permission's existence or possibility of the insurance accident.

[3] The case holding that in case where a policyholder of the comprehensive movable insurance caused an employee to drive a tent, which is a heavy equipment that can drive a Class A driver's license for the first class of large vehicles, and the employee was damaged due to an accident, the driver'sless driving of the employee constitutes a serious violation of the Acts and subordinate statutes and was done under the explicit approval of the policyholder, and thus, it constitutes an exemption from liability under the terms and conditions for heavy equipment addition clause / [2]

With respect to the first and third points

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that: (a) on December 16, 191, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Non-Party 2 International Finance Co., Ltd. on one of the Daegu 1 (Seoul 22-143); (b) on December 16, 1993, the Defendant entered into a comprehensive insurance contract with the above International Finance Co., Ltd. on movable property; (c) however, Article 2 of the said General Insurance Terms and Conditions provides that the Defendant would compensate for damages caused by an unexpected accident; (d) the insured (or any other institution executing the duties of the director or corporation) or his legal representative’s damages incurred by the Plaintiff’s intentional or gross negligence during the construction of the said Daegu 4,000 air; (e) on the ground that, despite the fact that the Non-Party’s 4,000 air equipment was no longer operated by the Non-Party 1,000 or its legal representative at the time of the said accident, the Defendant did not have a license to drive the said 1,00,000000 meters of air meters.

However, according to Article 4 (1) 1 of the General Terms and Conditions of Movables Insurance of this case, the defendant, who is the insurer, does not compensate for the damage caused by the intentional or gross negligence of the policyholder, the insured (in the case of a corporation, the director or any other institution executing the business of the corporation), or his/her legal representative. Thus, the damage is exempted only for the damage caused by the intentional or gross negligence of the policyholder, the insured (in the case of a corporation, the director or any other institution executing the business of the corporation), or his/her legal representative. It shall not be deemed that the damage caused by the intentional or gross negligence of the policyholder, the insured or his/her legal representative.

However, according to the facts duly admitted by the court below, the non-party driving the above tent is clear that it is the person employed by the plaintiff who is the policyholder. Thus, even if the above non-party's gross negligence is recognized as to the occurrence of the insurance accident of this case, the above non-party's gross negligence is immediately attributable to the plaintiff's gross negligence, and the exemption clause of Article 4 (1) 1 of the above General Clause cannot be applied. Therefore, for the above exemption clause to be applied, the plaintiff, who is the policyholder, should be recognized as intentional or gross negligence of the occurrence of the insurance accident of this case. Thus, as recognized by the court below, even though the above non-party, who is his employee, was not holding only Class 2 ordinary driver's license, even if the above non-party, even though he had the above non-party driving the above tent air with the weight of 32 through 34t at night, it cannot be recognized that the plaintiff was gross negligence in the occurrence of the insurance accident of this case, and there is no other gross negligence in examining the records.

Therefore, the court below erred in finding that the accident of this case occurred due to the plaintiff's gross negligence and deemed it to fall under the reasons for exemption under Article 4 (1) 1 of the above General Clause, but the court below further determined that the damage caused by the accident of this case falls under the exemption clause of Article 3 (1) 2 of the above General Clause, and the judgment of this case is not appropriate in the explanation of the reasons, but the conclusion that the part of the judgment falls under the above exemption clause is just, and it is not affected by the conclusion that the above exemption clause is not proper. The argument is without merit.

On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below stated that Article 3 (1) 2 of the Heavy Equipment Additional Clause which is a part of the comprehensive insurance contract of this case does not compensate for damages caused by violation of the law or other rules as a result of a assumptive judgment. As seen earlier by the above non-party, it is clear that the non-party's without a license constitutes an act in violation of the law or other rules stipulated in Article 3 (1) 2 of the above Heavy Equipment Additional Clause, and in the case of non-life insurance such as movable property insurance in this case, "damage caused by violation of the law or other rules" in the terms of the contract of this case as an insurer's exemption, if the damage occurred under the circumstance of violation of the law or other rules, it seems that there is no causation between the violation and the damage, and even if it is interpreted that there is a proximate causal relationship between the violation and the accident, it is sufficient to recognize that the non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's accident or non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's accident.

In light of the records, when Article 3 (1) 2 of the Heavy Equipment Additional Clause, which is a part of the above comprehensive insurance contract as a part of the above comprehensive insurance contract, provides for "damage caused by violation of the above comprehensive insurance contract" as the insurer's exemption, it appears to be a ground for exclusion from the insurer's indemnity even if there is no causal link between the violation of the law or other rules, considering the circumstance that the damage was caused by the violation of the law or regulations, and if the damage was caused by the violation of the above law or regulations, it is interpreted as excluding all accidents caused by the violation of the above law or other rules without any limitation, it is unfair that the insurer becomes exempted from liability even in the case of minor violation of the law or regulations or regulations, which are not a serious violation of the law or regulations. Therefore, Article 3 (1) 2 of the above Act and subordinate statutes or regulations of the insurer's exemption from liability should only be interpreted as null and void in light of the principle of trust and good faith and thus, Article 9 (1) 2 of the above Act and subordinate statutes or regulations of the insurance accident.

In the case of this case, it is obvious that the act of the above non-party driving the astronomical air of this case, which is a heavy equipment, without a license, constitutes a violation of Article 3 (1) 2 of the above Heavy Equipment Additional Clause. As seen earlier, since the plaintiff caused the accident in this case by allowing the above non-party to drive the said tent and driving it, the non-exclusive license of the above non-party was made under the plaintiff's explicit approval. Thus, since it is obvious that the damage of the above astronomical air caused by the above accident constitutes an exemption from liability under Article 3 (1) 2 of the above Additional Clause of the above Heavy Equipment Additional Clause, it shall be deemed that the defendant who is the insurer shall be exempted from liability under the above standardized contract.

The judgment of the court below is inappropriate at the time of its explanation of its reasoning, but it is justified in the conclusion that the damage caused by the insurance accident in this case falls under the exemption clause stipulated in Article 3 (1) 2 of the above Heavy Equipment Additional Clause and the defendant is exempted from liability. The discussion of this issue is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is 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.

Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)