[손해배상(자)][공1998.6.15.(60),1607]
[1] Where an actor entered into a contract under another person's name, the method of determining the contracting party
[2] The case holding that the contracting party is not an affiliated company but an affiliated company where the contract was concluded with the name of the policyholder and the insured as its affiliated company for the purpose of saving the insurance premium
[1] As to who is the principal of a contract in cases where an actor who executes a contract was engaged in a juristic act in the name of another person, the intent of the actor and the other party shall be determined as the party to the contract in accordance with the same intent if the actor and the other party agree with each other. If the other party fail to agree with each other, the other party shall be determined in accordance with each other’s specific circumstances before and after the conclusion of the contract, including the nature, content, purpose, and circumstance of the contract.
[2] The case holding that, in case where an employee of a local company entered into an insurance contract with an employee of an insurance company for the purpose of concluding an insurance contract in the name of its affiliate with low insurance premium rate due to a large relationship between the company's accident and its insurance premium rate, stating that the vehicle is owned by its affiliated company and the insured as its affiliated company, it cannot be deemed that there was an agreement with the insurance company, which is the other party, to do so between the policyholder or the insured and the insurance company, and that the insurance company appears to have entered into the insurance contract by understanding that the affiliated company, which is the nominal owner of the contract, is the actual policyholder and the insured, is the insurance company, and that the policyholder and the named insured are an affiliated company whose nominal owner is the contracting party.
[1] Article 105 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 105 of the Civil Act
[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da55385 delivered on October 13, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3769), Supreme Court Decision 95Da1019 delivered on July 30, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2618), Supreme Court Decision 96Da32003 Delivered on November 26, 1996 (Gong1997Sang, 63), Supreme Court Decision 97Da22089 Delivered on March 13, 1998 (Gong198Sang, 1011)
Plaintiff 1 and four others (Law Firm Seosan, Attorney Nam-woon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Plaintiff’s Intervenor ( Love General Law Firm, Attorneys Na-ho et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Daejeon Law Office, Attorney Kim In-bok, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Daejeon High Court Decision 95Na5507 delivered on July 18, 1997
The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.
1. The court below acknowledged that the plaintiff's assistant participant who purchased the dump truck of this case and operated it to the non-party Jung Young-gu Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Sump truck of this case")'s purchase of the above dump truck of this case, caused many accidents involving large insurance premium rates from the employees in charge of insurance for the above vehicle, and recommended that the above vehicle be insured under the name of the insurance company for the same new dump, Inc. (hereinafter the same dump truck of this case) as its affiliated company transfer its registered name to the above company, and requested that the above vehicle be insured under the name of the above dump owner of the above dump truck of this case, transferred its insurance for the reason that the above dump truck of this case was transferred to the above company's dump of this case's insurance for the reason that the above dump of this vehicle had been transferred to the non-party 2's employee before the transfer of registration for the above vehicle was made.
2. However, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below that deemed the policyholder and the insured of the above general automobile insurance as the substitute beneficiary as follows.
In cases where an actor who enters into a contract performs a juristic act in another person’s name, the parties to the contract shall be determined, first of all, in cases where the intent of the actor and the other party coincide with that of the actor and the other party, and in cases where the intent of the actor and the other party does not coincide with that of the other party, the other party shall be determined by whether to understand either the actor and the nominal owner as the party to the contract, in accordance with the specific circumstances before and after the conclusion of the contract, including the nature, content, purpose, and circumstances of the contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da22089, Mar. 13, 1998; 96Da32003, Nov. 26, 1996).
According to the facts established by the court below, in entering into the dump truck insurance contract of this case registered in the name of the company of the defendant company with the company, the employees in charge of the defendant company entered into the insurance contract of this case with the company of this case with the company of this case in order to enter into the insurance contract in the name of the company of this case with a low insurance premium rate due to a large number of accidents, the above vehicles are the vehicles owned by the company of the defendant company and the company of this case with the name of the policyholder and the insured. Thus, it cannot be deemed that there was a mutual agreement between the defendant company of this case and the company of this case, although it is not known that the company of this case had the intention to do so between the policyholder or the insured, and it seems that the defendant company understanding that the dump truck of this case, the nominal owner of the contract, is the actual policyholder and the insured and the insurance premium
Therefore, the policyholder and the named insured of the instant comprehensive automobile insurance should be deemed to be the same person, the nominal owner of the instant contract. Therefore, the lower court should have deliberated on the validity of the instant insurance contract on the premise of such premise and, if so, whether the Intervenor, who is the land owner of the said vehicle, can be the insured of the same period, etc., and held the Defendant liable for damages regarding the instant accident.
The court below did not reach this and recognized the defendant's liability for damages on the premise that the company is the policyholder of the automobile insurance of this case and the insured is the insurer of the automobile insurance of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the parties to the insurance contract or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the ground of appeal assigning this error has merit.
3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)