(b) Possibility of an additional insurance contract with respect to valued insurance;

(c) The person who bears the burden of proving the invalidity of excess insurance contracts;

(d) Recognition as to whether an insurance contract is concluded, and relation between insurance policies and endorsement securities;

B. In case of non-life insurance, the insurable value, which is the assessed value of interest to be disadvantaged by the insured due to the occurrence of the insured events, shall be assessed in accordance with the objective criteria for the subject matter of insurance. However, in order to prevent disputes between the insurer and the insured after the occurrence of the insured events and to ensure prompt compensation for them, Article 670 of the Commercial Act provides for the insurable value in relation to the valued insurance. In this regard, even in the valued insurance contract, the parties may reduce or increase the assessed value by the additional insurance contract.

(c) If the insurer claims the restriction on the insurable value or the invalidity of the insurance contract on the ground that the excess insurance contract is stipulated in Article 669 of the Commercial Act, the burden of proof shall be borne by the insurer claiming the invalidity

D. Since an insurance contract is an abortion contract established by the agreement between the parties and requires a separate document, it does not require a separate document. Thus, the endorsement securities prepared and delivered when the contents of the insurance contract are modified is merely a single evidentiary document. Thus, whether the insurance contract is concluded or not, the parties to the insurance contract, the parties to the contract in accordance with the contents of the insurance contract, and the parties to whom the above securities are delivered as a whole, not only the above evidentiary documents, but also the parties to whom the above securities are delivered.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant and the independent party intervenor, and by the administrator of the male ocean fisheries company.

(1) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court: (a) concluded a lease agreement between the 1981.5.1 and the non-party 2, regarding the instant vessel as an independent party intervenor Gap; (b) concluded an additional insurance contract with the non-party 1,00,000,000,000 (hereinafter referred to as "the non-party 1; and (c) concluded an additional insurance contract with the non-party 1,000,0000 on August 28, 1981 with the intervenor Eul; (d) concluded an additional insurance contract with the non-party 1,000,000,000,0000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00).

(2) The judgment of the court below which recognized the policyholder and the insured of the additional insurance as the Seoyang, although the insured cannot be the insured because the insured interest in the instant vessel is the ownership of the ship, as the ship owner, the insured interest in the instant vessel merely as the ship lessee cannot be the insured because of the lack of insured interest in the additional insurance, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the existence and attribution

However, the purpose of the non-life insurance contract is to compensate for damages arising from the insured interest, and the insurable interest in the ship insurance includes the interests of the secured party in addition to the interests of the shipowner and the interests of the ship lessee, so it is just that the judgment of the court below recognizes the policyholder and the insured as the lessee of the ship of this case and there is no violation of law such as theory of lawsuit.

(3) The theory of lawsuit is that the existing insurance contract entered into between the intervenor B and the defendant is all valued insurance contracts entered into by assessing the insurance amount and the insurable value at US$300,000, respectively, and that there is no proof by the plaintiff that there was an increase in the insurable value between the time the additional insurance contract was entered into, and thus, it constitutes excess insurance and that the Seogman applied for an increase in the insurance amount without disregarding that there was no increase in the insurable value is an excess insurance as a result of fraud, but the court below rejected such claim by misapprehending the legal principles on excess insurance, thereby violating the rules of evidence.

In the case of non-life insurance, the insurable value, which is the assessed value of interest to be disadvantaged by the insured due to the occurrence of the insured events, shall be assessed in accordance with the objective criteria for the subject-matter of insurance. However, Article 670 of the Commercial Act provides that the insurable value may be determined in advance by the agreement of the parties concerned, in order to prevent disputes between the insurer and the insured before and after the occurrence of the insured events, and to make prompt compensation, the insurable value shall be determined by the agreement of the parties concerned. However, Article 69(4) of the Commercial Act provides that if the insured amount substantially exceeds the insurable value at the time of the occurrence of the insured event, the contract shall become null and void. In the case of the conclusion of the contract the insured amount substantially exceeds the value of the subject-matter of the insurance contract due to the fraud of the policyholder, the parties concerned may reduce or increase the assessed value of the additional insurance contract, and the burden of proof shall be borne by the insurer asserting the invalidity of the insurance contract on the ground of the excess insurance contract. There is no error in the misapprehension of the defendant's argument.

(4) According to the contents of Nos. 1 and 3 of the Nos. 1 and 3, although it is sufficient to recognize that the main engine and navigational meters have been lost due to the failure or failure of the main engine and navigational meters from the date of departure from the Guam, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion, this is the purport that the court below violated the rules of evidence.

However, even after examining the above documentary evidence, it is insufficient to recognize that the main institution and navigational meters have already been broken or occurred at the time of departure from the Guam. Although Guam also discovered the breakdown of the compact 3 hours and 20 minutes after departure from the Guam, the fact-finding of the court below is reasonable and it is not erroneous in the theory of lawsuit, as long as it can be confirmed that there was no error in the time when he had operated the compact spact to prepare for departure from the port at around 22:00 on the date of departure from the port. The arguments are groundless.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by the administrator of the male ocean fisheries corporation by the Intervenor,

In theory, the additional insurance contract is an agreement that increases the insurance proceeds of the existing insurance contract between the intervenor Eul and the defendant and transfers the right to receive the additional insurance proceeds to the Seoyangyang, and the additional insurance proceeds are transferred to the Seoyangyang, and the intervenor Eul did not pay the additional insurance proceeds and notified the defendant that the defendant would cancel the contract for the transfer of the right to receive the additional insurance proceeds and the contract designated as the right to receive the additional insurance proceeds. Thus, the court below did not have the right to receive the additional insurance proceeds, and rejected the intervenor Eul's assertion in spite of the lack of the right to receive the insurance proceeds, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles of the insurance policy and endorsement securities, and did not examine the transfer of the right to receive the insurance proceeds, and did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles of the judgment on the claim of the participant Eul, the cancellation of the contract and the cancellation of the designation of the right to receive the insurance proceeds, while recognizing the change of the existing insurance contracts in the additional

An insurance contract is established by the unity of intentions between the parties, and it does not require a separate document. Therefore, in the event that the contents of the insurance contract are modified at the time of the conclusion of the insurance contract, the endorsement securities prepared and delivered are only one evidentiary document.

Therefore, whether or not an insurance contract is concluded or not, the parties to the insurance contract, the contents of the insurance contract are not only the above evidence documents, but also the agreement on the situation before and after the conclusion of the contract, the burden of insurance premium, and the parties to whom the above securities have been delivered.

The court below acknowledged the fact that when entering into an additional insurance contract in the course of its findings of fact, it recognized the fact that the name of the insured of the existing insurance contract was changed to that of the Seocho-si on the endorsement securities issued by Seoyang-si, and comprehensively based on the conditions before and after entering into the additional insurance contract, the agreement between the person liable for additional premiums, and the circumstances surrounding the receipt of the endorsement securities by Seoyang-si, and the fact that the policy holder and the insured of the existing insurance contract are participants Eul and the additional insurance contract are policy holders and the insured are Seoyang-si. Thus, while recognizing the fact that the judgment below changed the name of the insured on the endorsement securities, which is the deed of the additional insurance contract, it did not err by recognizing the fact that the existing insurance contract and the additional insurance contract were different from the insured, and the argument of the intervenor on the premise that the additional insurance contract is the same as the policyholder of the existing insurance

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon In-bok (Presiding Justice)