[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below that the insurer cannot claim the contents of the contract as the content of the insurance contract since the insurer did not fulfill its duty to specify and explain, in case where it did not provide a specific and detailed explanation to the policyholder on the terms of the contract that the payment of insurance money is restricted to the driver of Orba at the

A. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 3

Upon entering into an insurance contract, the insurer and the person engaged in the conclusion or solicitation of the insurance contract are obligated to provide the policyholder or the insured with specific and detailed explanation and explanation of the important contents of the insurance contract, such as the content of the insurance contract, the system of insurance premium rates, changes in the entries in the written application for insurance, and reasons for exemption of the insurer's liability. If the insurer entered into an insurance contract in violation of such obligation to specify and explain the terms and conditions of the insurance contract, he/she may not claim the contents of the terms and conditions as the content of the insurance contract (see Supreme Court Decisions 97Da4494, Sept. 26, 1997; 2001Da14917, 14924, Sept. 18, 2001).

The court below determined that the contents of the contract of this case cannot be asserted as the contents of the insurance contract of this case since the defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter referred to as "the defendant") did not provide a detailed and detailed explanation to the deceased who is the policyholder at the time of the conclusion of the contract of this case as to the terms and conditions that the insurance solicitor's misunderstanding of the defendant (the plaintiff; hereinafter referred to as "the defendant") is limited to the insurance solicitor's payment of insurance money at the time of conclusion of the contract of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the contract of this case"). In light of the above legal principles and the records, the court below's fact-finding and determination are just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles as to the duty to explain the terms and conditions.

In addition, in light of the records, it is difficult to view that the deceased had already been well aware of the content of the contract of this case at the time of entering into the insurance contract of this case, and it cannot be deemed that the content of the contract of this case is nothing more than the extent of returning or delaying what is prescribed by the laws and regulations. Thus, the defendant's explanation and duty

The ground of appeal pointing out this point is without merit.

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 4

In light of the records, the judgment of the court below that the exercise of the defendant's right to terminate the contract on the ground of the violation of the duty to notify under Article 652 of the Commercial Act is effective after the expiration of the exclusion period of one month shall be justified and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

2. Determination on the grounds of appeal as to the counterclaim

As seen above, all of the grounds of appeal on the principal lawsuit cannot be accepted, and as long as the termination of the contract by the defendant on the grounds of violating the duty of disclosure or the duty of notification is deemed to be invalid, the argument in the grounds of appeal on the counterclaim, which is premised on the lawful termination of the contract of this case, is not acceptable.

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

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)