[손해배상(자)][공1997.10.15.(44),3096]
[1] Whether the exemption clause of an automobile insurance policy conflicts with the prohibition of disadvantageous alteration under Article 663 of the Commercial Act as to the application of Article 659(1) of the same Act (negative)
[2] The scope of application of the exemption provision for unauthorized Driving
[3] Whether a provision on exemption from driver's license applies to a case where a driver's license is suspended or revoked (affirmative), and whether it applies only to a case where there is a causal relationship between a driver's license without license and an accident
[1] Article 659 (1) of the Commercial Code intends to exclude a person who directly caused an accident, i.e., a person who is responsible for the cause of the accident, from the subject of the protection of the insurance. Therefore, the provision of exemption under the insurance policy provides for the reduction of liability for the cause of the accident as to the reduction of disadvantage change under Article 663 of the Commercial Code, which goes against the prohibition of disadvantageous change under Article 663 of the Commercial Code. However, the provision of exemption under certain conditions such as the situation at the time of the occurrence of damage or personal relations, regardless of the cause of damage, cannot be deemed to be subject to Article 659 (1) of the Commercial Code. Thus, the so-called "Article 10 (1) 6 of the General Terms and Conditions of Automobile Insurance does not compensate for the damage caused by the accident when the driver of the insurance without a license is driving without a license." It is difficult to view it as subject to the application of Article 659 (1) of the Commercial Code, because the so-called exemption clause does not stipulate the cause of accident without a license.
[2] The provision on exemption from non-licensed driving is without limitation to who is the subject of the non-licensed driving. However, if it is deemed that the above provision is applied even when there is no possibility of control or management of the policyholder or the insured with respect to the non-licensed driving, the above provision is a provision which loses fairness in violation of the principle of trust and good faith and is not bound to be null and void in light of each provision of Article 6(1) and (2), Article 7(2), and Article 7(3) of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act. Thus, the provision on exemption from non-licensed driving shall be interpreted as valid to the extent that it is interpreted as a provision that sets the insurer’s exemption from license only where the non-licensed driving was made under the explicit or implied approval of the policyholder
[3] Since the exemption clause does not define the cause of an accident on the ground that the accident occurred is not on the ground that the accident occurred without a license, but on the ground that it is excluded from the subject of the insurer's insurance, taking into account the situation of violation of the law that the accident occurred at the time of the accident, it shall be deemed that the driver's license is suspended or revoked, and it shall not be interpreted that the exemption clause is limited to the case where there exists a causal relationship between the non-licensed driving and the insurance accident.
[1] Articles 659 and 663 of the Commercial Act / [2] Article 105 of the Civil Act, Articles 6 and 7 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act / [3] Article 659 of the Commercial Act
[1] [2] Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Meu23899 delivered on December 24, 1991 (Gong1992, 652) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 90Meu20654 delivered on January 21, 1992 (Gong1992, 867) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Da38928 delivered on March 9, 1993 (Gong193Sang, 1147), Supreme Court Decision 91Da36420 delivered on December 21, 1993 (Gong194Sang, 475) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 93Da20313 delivered on May 10, 1994 (Gong1994, 196329) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Da38979 delivered on June 36, 1997
Final Co., Ltd. and one other (Attorneys Lee Woo-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
El District Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Han Han-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Gwangju High Court Decision 96Na7273 delivered on April 11, 1997
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the facts duly established by the court below are as follows.
On August 31, 1994, co-defendants of the first instance trial concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the defendant that provides that the insured shall be compensated by the co-defendants of the first instance trial; the insured motor vehicle shall be covered by the insurance period from September 3, 1994 to September 3, 195; and the co-defendants of the first instance trial shall be liable for damages under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act due to the death or injury of another person due to the operation of the said motor vehicle; and the insurer shall not compensate for the damages incurred by the driver of the said motor vehicle without a license. Article 10(1)6 of the General Terms and Conditions applicable to the instant insurance contract provides that the insurer shall not compensate for the damages incurred by the driver of the said motor vehicle without a license.
On March 21, 1995, the co-defendant of the first instance trial, while driving the said car on the 19:10 on March 21, 1995, caused Non-party 1 to die. On the other hand, the co-defendant of the first instance trial, prior to the instant accident, was discovered on December 30, 1994 when driving in the state of drinking alcohol concentration of 0.19% prior to the instant accident, and the commissioner of the previous South Korean Police Agency revoked his driver's license as of January 5, 1995. The head of the net Police Station notified him of the revocation of the driver's license by registered mail and reached that time.
On the basis of the above facts, the court below held that the accident in this case occurred when the co-defendant of the court of first instance, the insured, was exempted from the obligation to pay insurance money to the plaintiffs in accordance with the above exemption clause.
2. Article 659(1) of the Commercial Act intends to exclude a person who directly caused an insurance accident, i.e., a person who is fully responsible for the cause of the accident, from the subject of the protection of the insurance. Therefore, the provision of the exemption from liability under the insurance policy provides for the reduction of the liability condition for the cause of such damage in breach of Article 663 of the Commercial Act, but the provision of certain conditions such as the situation at the time of occurrence of damage or personal relations, regardless of the cause of the damage, can not be deemed to be subject to Article 659(1)6 of the Commercial Act. Article 10(1)6 of the common terms and conditions of the automobile insurance of this case, the so-called "no driver without a license shall compensate for any damage caused by an accident caused by the driver without a license." The so-called "Article 659(1) of the Commercial Act does not provide for the reason that the cause of the accident was not a non-licensed driver without a license, but excludes the accident from the subject of the insurer's compensation at the time of the accident.
In addition, the provision on exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the license is to be interpreted as valid within the extent of interpreting that the exemption from the license without the license is limited to the case where the exemption from the exemption from the license without the license is made under the explicit or implied approval of the policyholder or the insured, etc. (see the above Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Meu23899, supra). In addition, since the exemption from the exemption from the license is a provision which has lost the fairness in violation of the principle of trust and good faith and thus, it cannot be viewed as null and void in light of the respective provisions of Articles 6(1) and (2), 7(2) and 7(2) and 3 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act, the exemption from the license without the license is null and void unless the exemption from the license without the license is made under the explicit or implied approval of the insurer or the insured (see the above Supreme Court Decision 90Da29899, Mar. 29, 2009).
According to the facts duly confirmed by the court below, the above accident is an accident that occurred while the co-defendant of the court of first instance driving without a license under Article 53 of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act was duly notified by the chief of the net Police Station of the revocation disposition of driver's license. Therefore, the defendant does not have a duty to pay insurance money to the plaintiffs in accordance with the above exemption clause. Therefore, the judgment below is justifiable, and the judgment below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the interpretation of the exemption clause or its validity, as otherwise pointed out in the ground of appeal by the court below. The grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.
3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)