[부당이득금][공1996.9.15.(18),2618]
[1] The nature of the insurance policy
[2] The method of identifying the party where a legal act was done under another person's name at will
[1] Since an insurance contract is an abortion contract established by the agreement between the parties and requires a separate document, where the content of the insurance contract is modified at the time of the conclusion of the insurance contract, endorsed securities prepared and delivered are merely one evidentiary document, and thus, it can be acknowledged by considering not only the parties to the insurance contract, the parties to the insurance contract, the parties to the insurance contract, but also the parties to the contract who received the insurance premium, the agreement on the circumstances before and after the conclusion of the contract, the burden of the insurance premium, and the relevant securities.
[2] In a case where a juristic act was done in another person’s name and the other party’s intent as to whom the actor or nominal holder is the party, the act of the actor or nominal holder shall be decided as the act of the nominal holder according to the consistent intent. However, where it is impossible to determine the consistent intent, the other party shall be determined by determining who is the actor and nominal owner among the parties to the contract in accordance with the nature of the contract, contents, circumstances leading up to the conclusion of the contract, and detailed circumstances before and after the conclusion of the contract, if it is reasonable for the
[1] Articles 638 and 640 of the Commercial Act / [2] Article 105 of the Civil Act, Article 48 of the Civil Procedure Act
[1] Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2933, 2934, 2935 decided Feb. 9, 198 (Gong198, 493), Supreme Court Decision 92Da32852 decided Oct. 27, 1992 (Gong1992, 3293) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Da4912 decided Sept. 29, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 3584), Supreme Court Decision 94Da5385 decided Oct. 13, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 3769)
Korea Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Cho Dong-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
National Lease Corporation
Seoul Private District Court Decision 94Na25338 delivered on November 23, 1994
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
1. We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.
A. As to the second ground for appeal
Since an insurance contract is established by the agreement between the parties, and it does not require a separate document. Thus, an endorsement document prepared and issued when the contents of an insurance contract are modified is merely a single evidentiary document. Thus, regardless of whether an insurance contract is concluded or not, the parties to an insurance contract, the agreement between the parties to the contract and the party to whom the insurance premium was paid, and the parties to whom the above securities were delivered can be acknowledged by considering not only the above evidentiary document, but also the agreement between the parties to the contract and the parties to whom the insurance contract was concluded (see Supreme Court Decision 86Meu293, 2934, 2935, Feb. 9, 198).
Therefore, in full view of the evidence adopted by the court below, the guarantee insurance contract of this case is justified in holding that the contract of this case was null and void after the forgery of the lease insurance subscription form and agreement in the name of the above Kim Jong-hwan and the certificate of personal seal impression obtained by the non-party Kim Jong-hwan from the non-party Kim Jong-young, using the copy of the business registration certificate, the seal imprint, and the certificate of personal seal impression, and that the contract of this case was submitted to the plaintiff, and there
B. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 3, and 4
In case where a juristic act was done in another person’s name and the other party’s intent is identical to that of the actor or the nominal owner, the act of the actor or the nominal owner shall be decided according to the consistent intent. However, in case where it is impossible to confirm the consistent intent, the other party shall be determined by determining who is the actor and the nominal owner, in accordance with the nature of the contract and the details of the contract, and the detailed circumstances before and after the conclusion of the contract, based on which the other party can understand the person as the contracting party if he is a reasonable human being, it is reasonable to determine the conclusion and validity of the contract (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da4912 delivered on September 29,
If the facts were duly determined by the court below, the parties to the guarantee insurance contract of this case are the above Kim Jong-hwan as a policyholder, and the above non-party 1 should be deemed to have concluded the guarantee insurance contract of this case in the name of the above Kim Jong-hwan without authority. Thus, the guarantee insurance contract of this case cannot be effective in accordance with the contract unless there are special circumstances such as the ratification of the above Kim Jong-hwan.
The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law as the theory of lawsuit in the judgment below. All the arguments are without merit.
2. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)