The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The judgment of the original judgment is based on the premise that the provisions of the Civil Act shall apply to the commercial matters unless otherwise provided for in the Civil Act. However, Article 649 of the Commercial Act provides that if the whole or part of the contract is terminated voluntarily by the policyholder before the occurrence of an insured incident, the application of Article 541 of the Civil Act shall be excluded as the effect of termination, and Article 541 of the Civil Act provides for the status of a third party after the declaration of intent of profits shall also be applied to the contract for the third party, if the contracting party has reserved in advance that the right may be extinguished or extinguished even after the occurrence of the right of the third party, the original judgment shall only be limited to the limited right, and the application of the provisions of Article 541 of the Civil Act shall not be entirely excluded from the application of the provisions of the Civil Act to the commercial matters or in the insurance contract for the third party, so there is no reason or misapprehension of legal principles in the original judgment.

As to ground of appeal No. 2

The judgment of the court below is interpreted as the decision that the status of the plaintiff, who is the insured, does not continue to maintain the insurance contract due to the termination of the insurance contract by the policyholder before the occurrence of the insurance accident, and his rights as the insured shall be extinguished. Therefore, there is no ground or omission in the judgment of the court below, and even if the rights of the insured are extinguished due to the termination of the insurance contract by the policyholder before the occurrence of the insurance accident, the termination of the insurance contract can be even in the case of the termination of the contract by the insurer pursuant to Article 650 of the Commercial Act, etc., and there is no ground

As to ground of appeal No. 3

On the other hand, the judgment after the judgment of remanding the lawsuit is based on the premise that the contract is terminated by the policyholder before the occurrence of the insurance accident. Therefore, it cannot be said that the judgment conflicts with the judgment of remanding the lawsuit.

As to ground of appeal No. 4

According to the provision of Article 656 of the Commercial Act, the insurer's liability, unless the contract is agreed by the parties, begins from the time when the initial insurance premium is paid (Article 2 of the evidence No. 1), so long as there is no policyholder's insurance premium payment, the insurer is not obliged to pay the insurance money even if the occurrence of the insured event occurs, and in this case, the insurer cannot be held liable for tort before the occurrence of the insured event. Article 649 of the Commercial Act provides that the policyholder can terminate the insurance contract before the occurrence of the insured event, which makes it impossible for the insurer to pay the insurance money before the occurrence of the insured event, and thereby causes damages to the insured, the insurer cannot be held liable for tort against the insurer even if the policyholder is entitled to claim compensation against the policyholder, and the status of the obligee in the contract of guarantee and the status of the insured in the insurance as of this case cannot be the same.

Therefore, according to Articles 400, 395, and 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Rin- Port (Presiding Justice)