[2] In a case where the insurance company Gap et al. entered into an insurance contract with Eul et al. as the insured to compensate for damages arising from non-performance of legal services, such as the registration duties provided by Eul, such as non-performance of duties, loss, neglect, and negligence, and Eul's officer embezzled the registration expenses paid by the registrar, and Eul et al. failed to perform the registration duties delegated by Eul, and Eul et al. sought insurance payment against Eul, the case holding that Eul et al.'s liability for the payment of insurance proceeds to Gap et al. was exempted pursuant to Article 659 (1) of the Commercial Act, since Eul et al. was in a state of lack of due care, and the occurrence of the insurance accident caused by Eul's intention, and thus, Eul's insurance

1. Regarding the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal

A. Ground of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

The lower court determined that, on March 28, 201, Nonparty 1 entered into the instant two insurance contract on behalf of Nonparty 2 on behalf of Nonparty 2, and that at that time, Nonparty 1 was liable to pay debts much more than the payment capacity due to the previous embezzlement, and that the registration expenses were deposited from the apartment occupants of this case into the account of Nonparty 2, and that another embezzlement was commenced by using part of the former embezzlement as compensation for the former embezzlement. If the Defendant, who is the insurer, was clearly aware of such fact, Nonparty 1 was obligated to notify this fact in accordance with the principle of good faith. However, Nonparty 1 concluded the instant two insurance contract without notifying the Defendant at all, and the Defendant could revoke the instant two insurance contract on account of the above deception. Furthermore, the lower court rejected the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the Plaintiffs constituted a bona fide third person under Article 110(3) of the Civil Act, even if the Plaintiffs’ direct claim was acknowledged pursuant to the provisions of law, this is premised on the existence of the insurance contract concluded between the Defendant and Nonparty 2 and the Defendant, the insurer, the insured.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the cancellation of contract by deception and the third party acting in good faith, or exceeding the bounds of the principle

B. Ground of appeal No. 3

The lower court acknowledged the fact that, with respect to the damages arising from a single claim for damages (insurance accident) in Chapter 4 of the insurance clause of this case, only if the damages exceed its own share, the Plaintiffs agreed to compensate for the excess amount, and determined that the Plaintiffs’ claim for damages against the Defendant is in accordance with Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act, and the Defendant is liable for direct damages only within the limit of its insured amount, and thus, the amount of KRW 10 million should be deducted from the damages that the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiffs

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. Ground of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

The court below concluded the insurance contract of this case 1 and 2 with the purport of compensating for damages caused by the non-party 2's non-performance of duties, such as the registration duties provided by the defendant as the insured by the non-party 2. The non-party 2's employee, who is the non-party 2's employee, was authorized to accept and deal with the registration in the name of the non-party 2's name. The non-party 2 entered into the delegation contract of this case on behalf of the non-party 2. The non-party 2's seal impression book, certificate of personal seal impression, copy of resident registration certificate, copy of the certificate of resident registration, copy of the certificate of resident registration, head of passbook, security card, certificate, etc., and managed the account under the name of the non-party 2 whose expenses were deposited. Accordingly, the non-party 2 was unable to perform the above registration agent's duty as the non-party 2's agent, which was a specialized legal service entrusted by the defendant. Accordingly, the non-party 2's non-party 2's non-performance obligation should be paid damages within the insurance contract of this case.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the scope of warranty against attorney liability insurance, the insured’s damages covered by

B. Ground of appeal No. 5

In Article 659 (1) of the Commercial Code, "where an insurance accident has occurred due to the intention or gross negligence of a policyholder, the insured or the beneficiary," which is stipulated as the reason for exemption of the insurer's liability means a situation in which the insurer's gross negligence is easily illegal and harmful even though he did not pay considerable attention to the extent required by the ordinary person, if he did not occur, it means a situation in which he did not have considerable attention to the degree of necessity, and did not have considerable attention to the intention similar to that of the insurer (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da83700, Jun. 12, 2008).

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the defendant is exempted from liability pursuant to Article 659 (1) of the Commercial Act since the non-party 2's gross negligence was recognized with respect to non-party 2's non-performance of the delegation contract of this case, on the ground that even if the non-party 2's violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act or the supervision of appointment of non-party 1 was found, it is not sufficient evidence to conclude that the non-party 2 failed to perform the delegation contract

However, we cannot accept the above judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the non-party 2, who was employed by the non-party 1 as the head of the registration affairs, granted the authority to independently accept and deal with the registration cases in the name of the non-party 2, and provided the non-party 2's seal impression book, certificate of personal seal impression, copy of resident registration certificate, copy of the business registration certificate, copy of the attorney registration certificate, passbook, head of Tong, security card, and certificate, etc., which are necessary for the registration affairs, and agreed from the non-party 1 to receive 5,00,000 won per month. Accordingly, the non-party 2 did not confirm the fact that the non-party 1 did not have any involvement in the process of accepting and dealing with the registration cases in the name of the non-party 2 for whom the registration expenses are paid, and the non-party 1 embezzled the registration expenses deposited by the delegating party to the non-party 2's account, and thereby, the non-party 1 could not perform the plaintiffs' delegation contract due to this act or the attorney's practice.

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, during the process of Nonparty 2’s intentional act of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, which intentionally allows Nonparty 1 to use his attorney’s name with respect to registration affairs in order to receive compensation from Nonparty 1, thereby causing Nonparty 1’s embezzlement as to registration expenses, and thereby, Nonparty 2’s failure to perform the delegation contract of this case may be deemed to have occurred. Accordingly, if Nonparty 2 paid a little attention to Nonparty 2, it was limited to Nonparty 1’s embezzlement in the process of intentionally neglecting it, even if it could have anticipated Nonparty 1’s embezzlement and intentionally neglected it. Accordingly, Nonparty 2 appears that Nonparty 2 was in a state of lack of due care to cause. Accordingly, the Defendant’s liability to pay insurance proceeds to the Plaintiffs under the instant insurance contract is exempted pursuant to Article 659(1) of the Commercial Act.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise on the grounds stated in its reasoning that it does not constitute the grounds for exemption under Article 659(1) of the Commercial Act. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on gross negligence among the grounds for exemption under Article 659(1) of the Commercial Act, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The Defendant’s ground for appeal assigning this error

3. Conclusion

Without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal by the Defendant, the part against the Defendant among the judgment below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The Plaintiffs’ appeal is dismissed in entirety. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

[Attachment] List of Plaintiffs: Omitted

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)