B. Whether an insurance contract exists for an insured event which occurred during the period of delinquency in the installment payment, but the liability to pay the insurance proceeds is exempted (negative)

B. The insurance clause that the insurance contract continues to exist for the insurance accident that occurred during the period of delinquency in the installment, but the liability to pay the insurance money is exempted, has the same effect as the termination of the insurance contract for the insured, so it is substantially null and void within the disadvantageous scope of the insured by Article 663 of the Commercial Act, because it violates Article 650 of the Commercial Act

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below

A. On June 20, 1989, the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant vessel, entered into a so-called special deduction agreement between the Defendant and the Plaintiff, which is an insurance contract that compensates for losses arising from the liability of compensation to the Plaintiff under the Seafarers Act (hereinafter “the instant mutual aid agreement”) on the ground that the vessel was missing from 4.0 days before and after the arrival of the instant vessel at 1:3,66,00 won, and the mutual aid fee was 3,16,100 won for the first time after the arrival of the instant vessel at 4:0 days after the arrival of the instant vessel at 1:20 days after the arrival of the weather accident at 4:0 days after the arrival of the instant vessel at 1:3,00 won after the arrival of the weather accident at 4:0 days after the arrival of the instant vessel at 1:0 days after the arrival of the weather accident at 1:0 days after the arrival of the instant vessel at 1:0 days after the arrival of the weather accident at 1:3:0 days after the arrival of the instant vessel.

B. Furthermore, Article 5 (1) of the terms and conditions of the mutual aid agreement of this case provides that "the full amount of the mutual aid fee shall be paid in lump sum at the office designated by the defendant or the defendant: Provided, That it may be paid in installments as prescribed separately by the defendant," provided that "where the mutual aid fee is paid in installments under the proviso of paragraph (1) of this case, the defendant shall not be liable for damages incurred during the period of payment in installments, if the relevant mutual aid fee has not been paid in installments by the due date for payment," which provided that "the defendant shall not be liable for compensation for losses incurred during the period of payment in installments, and the plaintiff has paid the mutual aid fee after concluding the mutual aid agreement of this case through the East Sea Cooperative of this case through the East Sea Cooperative, and the plaintiff shall not be liable for payment in installments after the 40th of the mutual aid agreement of this case which was paid in installments by the 40th of March 20, 190, the plaintiff shall not be liable for payment in installments from the 40th of the accident compensation fund of this case.

C. The instant mutual aid agreement is a special insurance system in which all ship owners are forced to subscribe to the mutual aid agreement in order to ensure that the seafarers can fully pay accident compensation in the course of performing their duties. Other general insurance policies adopting special terms and conditions for installment payment, such as automobile comprehensive insurance or worker accident compensation insurance, have a grace period at the time of unpaid premiums in installments, and has paid compensation for losses incurred during the period of installment payment. However, in the instant mutual aid agreement, the exemption clause under the instant mutual aid agreement provides that where the installment payment is not made by the agreed date, the insurer shall not be liable for damages incurred during the unpaid period without providing a grace period for the unpaid payment of the unpaid premium, and the insurer shall not be unilaterally liable for damages incurred during the unpaid period of the mutual aid agreement only to the economically weak, and the insurer shall not be held liable for damages immediately after the expiration of the mutual aid agreement without the due date for the installment payment. The insurer shall not be held liable for damages arising during the period of exemption from the insurance agreement with the insurer’s opinion that the insurer shall not be held liable for the termination of the mutual aid agreement.

2. According to Article 650 of the Commercial Act, when the premium is not paid at an appropriate time, an insurer may terminate a contract with a reasonable period fixed and notified to a policyholder and, if the premium is not paid within such period, the insurer may terminate the contract. Article 663 of the same Act provides that a special agreement between the parties to the insurance provides that the above shall not change the premium to any disadvantage of the policyholder, the insured, or the beneficiary. Thus, the insurance clause stipulating that the installment premium shall not be paid at the prescribed time shall not be immediately terminated or invalidated without the above procedure, and that the insurer shall be exempted from the insurer’s liability for paying the insurance amount, shall be deemed null

3. The court below stated that the terms and conditions of the instant mutual aid agreement are not liable for compensation for losses incurred during the unpaid period of mutual aid fees in installments, and that the instant mutual aid agreement does not become null and void on the ground that the mutual aid agreement remains in force without resolving it. However, the continuation of the insurance contract without paying the insurance money does not have any particular meaning for the insured, nor do it differ from the case where the insurance contract is terminated or invalidated. Of course, Article 98 of the Seafarers Act is not applicable to the case where the insurance contract is terminated or invalidated. Article 139 of the Seafarers Act is enforced by the shipowner, and Article 139 of the Seafarers Act is punished by the non-insured owner, and the Maritime Affairs and Port Authority actually prohibits the disadvantage of the non-insured vessel from departing from the port. Thus, it is not meaningful for the shipowner, but it is also deemed that the Seafarers Act that did not receive the insurance money satisfies the purpose of compulsory subscription of insurance.

In addition, when an insurance contract is terminated or terminated, it is necessary to enter into a new contract or to restore the existing contract. In this case, the maximum purpose of the insured is to secure insurance money, and the prior liability insurance such as the insurance in this case is to enforce the law in order to ensure the whole accident compensation for seafarers (Article 98 of the Seafarers Act and Article 32 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act), and part of the insurance premium is subsidized by the National Treasury, so it is not meaningful that the insurance contract without insurance money to the seafarer who can be viewed as the status of the actual insured is an insurance contract.

In addition, in the case of this case, if the defendant's liability to pay the mutual aid money is exempted, the plaintiff who is the policyholder of the insurer should pay the premium in full because he did not receive the insurance money at all during the unpaid period of the mutual aid money in installments. The defendant's liability to pay the premium without the liability to pay the premium is the result of the payment of the premium, and it is contrary to the essence of the insurance contract with

Therefore, the above terms and conditions which do not pay insurance money upon the existence of an insurance contract cannot be deemed as having come to the same result as the termination of the insurance contract.

4. The installment payment period of the premium and the insurance period or the premium period are different. The installment payment system of the premium in this case is only the installment payment of the premium to be paid during the insurance period of one year and the insurance period for the convenience of the insured, and it does not change the insurance period or the premium period for each installment payment period.

In this case, since the Plaintiff did not pay only the fourth installment, 3/4 of the total insurance premium that shall be paid during the insurance period of 1 year is paid. Furthermore, considering the national subsidy, as long as the contract exists, the national subsidy would have been paid. If such, the Plaintiff would have delayed only part of the deduction fee for the fourth installment.

It is doubtful whether the exemption of the total amount of insurance proceeds from the unpaid payment of part of the insurance premiums during the insurance period is the liability period for setting a certain insurance period, and is consistent with the purpose of the insurance system that calculates the insurance premium by unit

5. If so, it is reasonable to view the exemption clause in this case as null and void within the disadvantageous scope to the subscribers under Article 663 of the Commercial Act as it actually causes a result of violating the provisions of Article 650 of the Commercial Act. The grounds for appeal are with merit to the extent of pointing this out.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.