[보험금][공1991.9.1.(903),2128]
The case holding that an insurance company is liable to pay the insurance money for an accident that occurred after the effect of the above contract even if the contract remains effective once the contract is concluded if the policyholder fails to pay the insurance premium to be paid in installments on the special terms and conditions of the automobile comprehensive insurance contract at the time, demands the restoration of the contract thereafter, and the unpaid insurance premium is paid, but it is decided not to compensate for an accident that occurred between the unpaid insurance premium and the
The case holding that an insurance company is liable to pay its insurance proceeds for an accident that occurred after the effect of the above contract in case where the contract is terminated once the policyholder fails to pay the insurance premium to be paid in installments in the special terms and conditions of the automobile comprehensive insurance contract, and the contract remains effective if the contract is requested to restore the contract thereafter, and the unpaid insurance premium is not paid, but the insurance company is decided not to pay the insurance premium for an accident that occurs between the date of the payment of the unpaid insurance premium and the date of the payment of the unpaid insurance premium after the lapse of the contract, on the ground that the insurance company's erroneous payment of the insurance premium rate was made in comparison with other insurance company, and the insurance company's business director received the corrected insurance
Article 105 of the Civil Act, Article 665 of the Commercial Act
Limited Liability Company Unified Transport
[Defendant-Appellant] Han Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. and three others
Busan High Court Decision 90Na7487 delivered on March 20, 1991
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
1. The facts established by the court below are as follows.
A. On May 17, 198, when entering into the instant comprehensive automobile insurance contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for 11 ton truck (vehicle number 1 omitted), the Plaintiff agreed to set the insurance period as KRW 1,180,630 for six months from 24:0 to 24:00 on November 17, 198, and to pay the insurance premium in three installments. On that day, the term of validity of the insurance was up to 472,250 won on July 17, 198, and the second insurance premium was up to 354,190 won on July 17, 198, and the third insurance premium was paid on September 17, 198. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 12508, Jul. 17, 198; Presidential Decree No. 12509, Sep. 17, 198>
B. As such, when a policyholder fails to pay the premium in installments on or after the second anniversary of the due date, the insurance contract shall lose its effect from 24:00 on the date on which the grace period expires, and when a policyholder requests a reinstatement of the insurance contract and pays the unpaid premium within 30 days after the insurance contract becomes invalidated, the insurance contract shall remain effective, but the insurance contract shall remain in force, but it shall not be obliged to compensate for any accident that happens up to 24:0 on the date on which the unpaid premium is received from the time the insurance contract becomes void.
C. The plaintiff paid the second insurance premium in July 31, 198, which was the grace period for the second insurance premium, 15:10 on August 2, 198. The accident of this case occurred around 18:40 on August 2, 198.
D. The major insurance company agreed to collect insurance premiums from the external member or collector of the insurance company on the part of the insurance company for the convenience of the insurance policyholder, and the defendant also agreed to do so against the plaintiff.
E. After paying the first insurance premium, the Plaintiff knew that the premium rate of 125% applied to the above truck was higher than 110% applied to other insurance companies, and that the first insurance premium was higher than 31,680 won, which is the premium rate of 110%, and the first insurance premium was higher than 160,570 won, and requested the Defendant to refund the excess insurance premium and to correct the premium rate by the end of the grace period, but the Defendant did not request the Defendant to collect the second insurance premium and did not request the Plaintiff to collect the second insurance premium. If the Plaintiff did not pay the second insurance premium, and there was a dispute between the Plaintiff and the second insurance premium rate of 125%, the Defendant (the last place of mountainous district) obtained the Defendant’s business head’s consent to reduce the insurance premium rate of 160%, and Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2, the Defendant’s business head’s business head’s 1 and Nonparty 1, the Plaintiff’s business head’s 2818.
F. In receiving the second insurance premium from the Plaintiff, Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 did not follow the procedure of restoring the insurance contract stipulated in the above special terms and conditions, and entered the term of validity of the said insurance in the receipt from July 17, 198 to September 24, 198.00 to September 24, 198.00.
2. The judgment of the court below
The fact that the plaintiff did not pay the second insurance premium by the due date has been disputed by the defendant's fault in setting the insurance premium rate higher than that of other companies. Accordingly, it is because the defendant's external secretary or collector did not instruct the plaintiff to collect the second insurance premium. Ultimately, the defendant accepted that the plaintiff's objection was reasonable, and corrected the insurance premium rate at the plaintiff's request, and the plaintiff paid the second insurance premium immediately before August 2, 198, which the defendant found his employees, so it cannot be deemed that there was any error in the delay in paying the above insurance premium. Moreover, under the above circumstances, it is reasonable to interpret that the defendant's retroactive entry of the term of validity of the above insurance contract under the above circumstances should be excluded from the application of the above special terms and conditions, thereby recognizing the invalidation of the above insurance contract and paying the second insurance premium at the time. Accordingly, the defendant is liable to pay the insurance premium to the plaintiff due to the above accident.
3. Judgment of party members
If the facts are as acknowledged by the court below, even though the plaintiff cannot be found to have any error in the delayed payment of the above insurance premium, it is reasonable to interpret that the defendant does not recognize the invalidation of the above insurance contract by excluding the application of the special terms and conditions for the exemption period and paid the second insurance premium at the time. The judgment of the court below is justified.
In addition, if the above non-party 1 is the head of the defendant's business, he simply has the authority to conclude an insurance contract with the policyholder and collect the insurance premium, and it is not authorized to recognize the invalidation of the insurance contract by excluding the application of the above special terms and conditions for the exemption period and to recognize that the second insurance premium was paid at the time without recognizing the validity of the insurance contract. Even if it is so, if the reasons why the insurance premium was reduced and the receipt was issued are as recognized by the court below, the plaintiff can be deemed to fall under the case where the above non-party 1 et al. received the insurance premium by reducing the insurance premium rate and there is a justifiable reason to believe that the above non-party 1
4. 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 on the bench.
Justices Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)