[2] Whether Article 659 (1) of the Commercial Act, which provides for the insurer's exemption from liability for an insurance accident caused by the policyholder's intentional or gross negligence, applies to guaranteed insurance (negative)

[3] In a case where the approval of business for the seller of a sales contract after the conclusion of the sales contract for securing loan bonds has been cancelled, whether the seller of the sales contract has suffered losses (affirmative) and the scope of losses

[2] In the case of an insurance accident caused by the policyholder's intentional or gross negligence, Article 659 (1) of the Commercial Act stipulating the insurer's exemption from liability does not apply to guarantee insurance unless there are special circumstances.

[3] In a case where a creditor has concluded a sales contract for the security of a loan to a seller for the security of a seller, and the competent authority cancels the approval of a business plan for the seller, as long as the seller is unable to perform the obligation under the sales contract, it shall be deemed that the damage was incurred to the person who entered into the sales contract for the purpose of securing the above loan claim, and the damage shall be deemed not to be the amount equivalent to the sale price but to the amount equivalent

First, in light of the records, the court below's measures are just, and there is no violation of law as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, Article 12 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Tourism Promotion Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Transport No. 1028 of July 30, 1994) provides that a person who has obtained approval for a business plan of a resort condominium may sell the pertinent condominium or offer members to the extent that the construction process is not less than 30% in total, and that where the construction process is less than 30% in total, a person who has obtained approval for a business plan of a resort condominium may sell the pertinent condominium or offer members to purchase a guarantee insurance to compensate for the damage if he/she suffered from the sale in lots or a member due to an accident in connection with the sale in lots or membership recruitment, and even if the above sales contract was concluded to secure a loan claim against the non-party company, the plaintiffs are deemed to be "the person who received the sale in lots" as provided by Article 12 (1) 1 of the above Enforcement Rule (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da12613, Jan. 24, 1997).

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the non-party company entered into a guarantee insurance contract with the defendant on November 16, 1990 with the effect that the non-party company did not grant authorization, permission, patent, license, approval, registration, or any other name on November 20, 190 for the purpose of selling in lots or offering membership at least 30% of the construction process and did not fulfill the conditions (authorization conditions) for the establishment of rights, prohibition, cancellation of prohibition, or other acts against the specific business facilities or acts, regardless of the title, and that the non-party company was liable for damages to the insured or the third party caused by the non-party condominium's failure to purchase in lots from the non-party company or the non-party condominium's member recruitment to obtain approval from the Governor of Gangwon-do on December 6, 1990 for the purpose of selling in lots or offering membership, and that the defendant was liable to cancel the above insurance contract with the non-party company's obligation to purchase in lots from the non-party condominium company or its member recruitment.

First of all the grounds of appeal, the representative director of the non-party company entered into a sales contract with the plaintiffs even though the non-party could not sell the above condominium normally. This constitutes fraud under the Criminal Act and the plaintiffs also entered into a sales contract with the non-party, so the insurance contractor's intentional act or gross negligence that Article 659 (1) of the Commercial Act stipulating the insurer's exemption should apply to insurance accidents caused by the insurance contractor's intentional act or gross negligence cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal. In addition, Article 659 (1) of the Commercial Act does not apply to the guarantee insurance case like this case unless there are special circumstances, and there is no such special circumstance even after examining records.

Meanwhile, as determined by the court below, if the Governor of Gangwon-do voluntarily cancelled the approval of the business plan for the non-party company, the non-party company becomes unable to perform its obligation under the contract for sale, so it shall be deemed that damage has occurred to the plaintiffs who concluded the contract for sale in this case for the purpose of securing the above loan obligation, and the damage shall be equivalent to the amount of obligation secured by the contract for sale in this case. Thus, the court below's finding the amount equivalent to the sale price under the contract for sale in this case as damage immediately is erroneous, but according to the records, it is possible to know the fact that the principal and interest of the debt exceeds the sale price under the contract for sale in this case, and there is no data to find that this exceeds the limit of the Interest Limitation Act. Therefore, it is justified to recognize

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)