[2] The case holding that the registration disposition of the Governor of the Financial Supervisory Service who limits the types and scope of damage adjusting business that a damage adjusting corporation is unlawful

[2] The case holding that since there is no provision that limits the types of business of a corporation engaged in damage adjusting business in the Insurance Business Act, the Enforcement Decree or the Enforcement Rules thereof, the registration disposition of the Governor of the Financial Supervisory Service who limits the types and scope of damage adjusting business that a damage adjusting corporation may operate is unlawful

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. On Nov. 23, 2001, Jin-Nam passed the 3rd appraiser examination, and registered as a certified claims adjuster on Jun. 15, 2002. Kim Chang-nam passed the 3rd claims adjuster examination on Oct. 24, 2003.

B. On October 29, 2003, Jinnam and Kim Chang-nam established the Plaintiff Company as a business entity with the business purpose as stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 188 of the Insurance Business Act on October 29, 2003, and completed the registration of incorporation on the same day, and on May 24, 2004, registered as a certified claims adjuster for Kim Chang-nam.

C. After that, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of damage adjusting business with the Defendant on May 4, 2005 for the purpose of running all damage adjusting business under each subparagraph of Article 188 of the Insurance Business Act.

D. However, on May 26, 2005, the Defendant issued a registration certificate to the effect that the type and scope of the Plaintiff company’s business is limited to the category and scope of the Plaintiff company’s business to the “Class 3 person” on the grounds that the Plaintiff company’s member of the Plaintiff company passed the Plaintiff company’s examination for the “Class 3 person,” a joint representative member of the Plaintiff company and Kim Chang-nam, who is a joint representative member, was limited to the “Class 3 person,” thereby making the instant disposition to register the Plaintiff company’s business by limiting the types and scope of the Plaintiff company’s business operation to the “Class 3 person.”

[Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry of Gap 1, 2, and 3's evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant's main defense

As to the lawsuit in this case seeking revocation on the premise that the defendant's disposition of this case, which had been registered by limiting the types of the plaintiff company's business to third parties, is unlawful, the defendant asserts that the representative members of the plaintiff company only passed the third party's examination, and that the damage evaluation business that the plaintiff company is allowed to run is limited to "third party" because they did not pass the first, second, and fourth class examination, so the damage evaluation business that the plaintiff company is allowed to run is limited to "third party." Thus, since the disposition in this case does not have any legal interest that the plaintiff company is infringed and there is no interest to recover due to the cancellation of the disposition in this case, the plaintiff company

However, the defendant's disposition of this case, unlike the plaintiff company's application for all the damage adjusting business under each subparagraph of Article 188 of the Insurance Business Act, is subject to the content limitation that limits the types and scope of the damage adjusting business so that only the third class of the damage adjusting business can be operated, or instead of rejecting the application for registration of the plaintiff company that intends to engage in all the damage adjusting business under each subparagraph of Article 188 of the Insurance Business Act, the plaintiff company revised the contents of the plaintiff company's application to allow only "the third class of the damage adjusting business" during the damage adjusting business and made a new administrative disposition different from the contents of the application. If such restriction is imposed or the disposition of this case is unlawful, the plaintiff company can engage in all the damage adjusting business under each subparagraph of Article 188 of the Insurance Business Act by seeking the revocation of the whole disposition of this case and by receiving a new registration disposition under each subparagraph of the judgment after receiving the final decision of revocation from the defendant, and therefore, the plaintiff company has no legal interest in seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case.

3. Whether the disposition is lawful;

(a) Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(b) Markets:

(1) Adjustment refers to the business of assessing the amount of damage and the amount of insurance proceeds in relation to damage caused by an insured event. The Insurance Business Act entrusts such damage adjustment business to “a certified damage adjuster” or “a certified damage adjusting business operator” who engages in damage adjustment business under Articles 185 and 188.

(2) However, as seen earlier, Article 186(1) of the Insurance Business Act provides that “any person who intends to become a certified damage adjuster shall pass the examination conducted by the Governor of the Financial Supervisory Commission and complete in-service training for a certain period.” Paragraph (2) provides that “The subjects of the examination under paragraph (1) and matters necessary for the exemption from examination and the period of in-service training shall be prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy.” Article 187 provides that “The registration of damage evaluators of a corporation intending to engage in damage evaluators or damage adjusting business shall be made under Article 186 and damage evaluators registered under Article 187 shall be separately provided for in Article 186(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Insurance Business Act, but the Insurance Business Act provides that “any person who intends to become a certified damage adjuster shall be entitled to engage in all the damage evaluators prescribed in each subparagraph of Article 188 of the Insurance Business Act and any person who is registered under each subparagraph of the same Article of the same Act shall be separately provided for in the Enforcement Decree of the Insurance Business Act.”

In light of such contents of the Insurance Business Act, a claims adjuster under Article 186 of the Insurance Business Act is expected to be a single type of claims adjuster who can perform all the claims adjustment business under each subparagraph of Article 188, and cannot be said to be a different claims adjuster who has different qualifications depending on the type of insurance accident or insurance type. Thus, it is invalid that Article 97 of the Enforcement Decree of the Insurance Business Act and Article 52 of the Enforcement Rule of the Insurance Business Act stipulate that the types and scope of the business he/she intends to divide the qualifications as a claims adjuster and limit the scope of the business he/she intends to engage in.

(3) Likewise, Article 187(2) of the Insurance Business Act provides that "a corporation that intends to engage in damage adjusting business shall have a certified damage adjuster exceeding the number prescribed by the Presidential Decree." Article 98(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Insurance Business Act provides that "a corporation that intends to engage in damage adjusting business under Article 187(2) of the Act shall have two or more full-time certified damage adjusters." Since there is no provision that restricts the types and scope of the business of a corporation that engages in damage adjusting business under the above delegation, there is no provision that restricts the types and scope of the business of a corporation that is engaged in damage adjusting business under Article 187(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Insurance Business Act or the Enforcement Rule thereof, a corporation that intends to engage in damage adjusting business is entitled to register as a damage adjusting business operator if there are two or more full-time certified damage adjusters, and as such, a corporation

(4) Therefore, inasmuch as the Defendant entrusted with the registration of a damage adjusting business operator pursuant to Article 194(2)6 of the Insurance Business Act had two or more full-time damage adjusters and filed an application for registration meeting the requirements under Article 97 of the Enforcement Decree of the Insurance Business Act, the Plaintiff company should accept the application and take registration without any restriction on the type of business. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff company cannot register with the scope of restricting the types of business limited to the types of damage evaluators passed by the Plaintiff company. (In order to divide the qualification of damage adjusters and limit the types and scope of business by classification of certified damage adjusters, the Insurance Business Act itself should provide for the classification of qualification of certified damage adjusters and the scope of business that may perform according to the classification of qualification of certified damage adjusters or to delegate these contents to the subordinate laws and regulations, in order to limit the business of a corporation operating damage adjusting business, the pertinent law must provide for the pertinent business only where the Plaintiff company has more than a certain number of damage adjusters for each type of business so that it can perform the pertinent business or enact the subordinate laws and regulations to delegate these contents).

Nevertheless, the defendant's disposition of this case, which limited the types and scope of the damage adjusting business that the plaintiff company will conduct, to "Class 3 large persons", is unlawful.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-hwan (Presiding Judge)