[2] The case holding that Eul company may exercise its right to terminate the insurance contract on the ground of a violation of the duty to notify under Article 652(1) of the Commercial Act, in a case where Gap, after entering into the injury insurance contract with Eul insurance company as the insured with Eul, claimed for the insurance proceeds from injury caused by Eul, such as double alleys, and Eul did not notify the increase in risk caused by albane driving

[2] In a case where Gap and Eul insurance company Byung suffered from injury due to injury, Byung acquired a driver's license and claimed for the payment of insurance proceeds for injury caused by injury to Eul, and Eul did not notify the increase in risk caused by Otoba driving, the case holding that Eul's insurance subscription was presumed to have not concluded the insurance contract, or that Byung did not take over the insurance premium at least before the above accident, and Byung did not inform Byung of the increase in risk caused by Obatoba driving, and Eul did not know that the insurance accident was significantly affected Eul's decision to cancel the insurance contract because Eul did not notify Byung of the increase in risk caused by Obatoba driving, the case holding that Eul's insurance contract was determined to have been 15 of the Commercial Act, since Eul did not exercise its duty to notify Byung of the increase in risk caused by Obabato under Article 25 of the Commercial Act.

1. As to the ground of appeal that does not constitute a violation of notification obligation under the Commercial Act

A. When the policyholder or the insured becomes aware of a significant change or increase in the risk of the occurrence of an accident during the insurance period (Article 652(1) of the Commercial Act). Here, the term “fact that the risk of the occurrence of an accident is significantly changed or increased” refers to the fact that the insurer did not conclude the contract if there exists a change or increase risk at the time of the conclusion of the insurance contract, or at least it is recognized that the insurer would not have taken over the insurance premium (see Supreme Court Decisions 95Da25268, Sept. 5, 1997; 2003Da18494, Jun. 11, 2004; 2003Da18494, Jun. 11, 2004).

B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence adopted, the lower court: (i) concluded the instant insurance contract with the Defendant on August 22, 2001; (ii) concluded the instant two insurance contract with the Plaintiff on March 15, 2006 with the Plaintiff and the Insured on August 22, 201; and (iii) concluded the instant two insurance contract with the Plaintiff on March 15, 2006 with the period of coverage from March 15, 207 to March 15, 207 without providing that the Plaintiff would not drive the instant insurance contract; and (iv) the Nonparty provided that the Plaintiff would have been subject to any duty to either alter or terminate the instant insurance contract with the Plaintiff on the ground that it would not have caused harm to the Plaintiff’s owner or driver’s license after entering into the instant insurance contract with the Defendant; and (v) the Nonparty did not inform the Plaintiff of any change in the terms and conditions of the instant insurance contract or would have caused harm to the Plaintiff’s owner or driver’s license without delay before and after the conclusion of the instant insurance contract.

We examine the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier. In light of the fact that there was a question about whether the Plaintiff had been holding or driving Obaba at the time of entering into each insurance contract of this case, the Defendant would have failed to conclude the insurance contract or at least would have not taken over the insurance premium. Furthermore, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff acquired a driver's license of a two-wheeled automobile and the Plaintiff suffered two Obaba accident within the short period after obtaining a license, the Plaintiff seems to have continuously driven Obaba after acquiring a driver's license with intent to continuously drive Obaba and continuously drive Oba. Furthermore, the Plaintiff had already been involved in the accident before the accident of this case, and the Nonparty respondeded to questions whether Obababa owns or driving at the time of entering into each insurance contract of this case, and thus, the Nonparty violated the Nonparty's duty to notify the Defendant that Obabababa, which is the Nonparty's insurance policyholder and the Nonparty's duty to change Obababa.

Although there are some deficiencies in the decision of the court below, it is acceptable for the court below to recognize the violation of the duty to notify under Article 652 (1) of the Commercial Act in each insurance contract of this case, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the duty to notify under Article 6

2. As to the ground of appeal on the violation of the duty to explain on the insurance terms and conditions

The Plaintiff’s ground of appeal on this part is that the provision of the duty to notify after the contract of the second insurance contract of this case does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, it cannot be acknowledged that the above insurance contract of this case violates the duty to inform the above insurance contract of this case. However, as seen earlier, the above contract clause of this case is specified by specifying the duty to notify under Article 652(1) of the Commercial Act, so long as the duty to notify under Article 652(1) of the Commercial Act in the second insurance contract of this case is acknowledged as violating the duty to notify under Article 652(1) of the Commercial Act, even if the court below erred in this part of the judgment of this case

3. As to the ground of appeal that the limitation period for exercising the right to terminate expires

The lower court determined that the Defendant had lawfully exercised its right to terminate the contract within one month, which is the exclusion period stipulated in Article 652(1) of the Commercial Act, even though the Plaintiff continued to drive Oraba in July 7, 2009 only after the Defendant received a damage adjusting report from the damage adjusting company.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the exclusion period of the right to terminate under Article 652 (1) of the Commercial Act, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

4. As to the ground of appeal on the effect that insurance proceeds shall be paid at the rate of the premium rate.

The lower court determined that the terms and conditions of the insurance contract of this case, which provide for the reduction of insurance money in accordance with the ratio of the premium rates to be applied to the transfer of risk or increase in the insurance contract of this case and the subsequent insurance premium rates, are not applicable to “the change of occupation or duty” and do not apply

Examining the above facts in light of the relevant legal principles, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by erroneous interpretation of the insurance clause.

5. Conclusion

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.

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)