Whether the mother(s) of the insured under the General Terms and Conditions for Limited Operation of Motor Vehicle Insurance includes the de facto spouse(s) of the father(s) (negative)

In light of the characteristics of the terms and conditions of ordinary trade and the insurance system, unlike general legal acts, the interpretation of the terms and conditions shall be based on the understanding of average customers rather than on the basis of the intended purpose or intent of each contracting party, but it shall be objectively and uniformly interpreted in consideration of the overall interests of the insurance organization. Therefore, it does not include the actual spouse of the part of the registered insured, who is not the mother of the registered insured, as stipulated in the special terms and conditions of limited driving of the automobile comprehensive insurance.

Article 5 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act, Article 105 of the Civil Act, Article 726-2 of the Commercial Act

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff

Defendant Co., Ltd. (Attorney Jin-jin, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Incheon District Court Decision 2008Na3336 Decided August 28, 2008

The part of the judgment below against the defendant shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the Incheon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the purpose of the special condition for limited driving of the automobile insurance is to reduce the insurance premium instead of limiting the insurance premium caused by an accident caused in the course of driving an insured motor vehicle, unlike the general condition for the automobile general insurance contract, and held that the insured's family members, which is the subject of insurance money, are purporting to use the insured motor vehicle, unlike the general condition for the automobile general insurance contract, and that according to the facts acknowledged by the evidence as stated in its reasoning, the non-party 1 is not a mother under the laws of the plaintiff who is a registered insured. However, the non-party 2, his father, and the non-party 1, including the legal period of marriage for 10 years as of the accident, share the same livelihood with the family community as of the time of the accident, and actually used the insured motor vehicle while serving as the mother of the plaintiff, and such family relation will continue to exist in the future by reporting the marriage with the non-party 2. In light of the purport of the special clause as above, the scope of the family special condition is included in the non-party 1's family ethics.

However, in light of the characteristics of the general terms and conditions and the insurance system, unlike the general legal act, the interpretation of the terms and conditions shall not be based on the purpose or intent of each contracting party and shall be based on the average customer's understanding potential, but it shall be objectively and uniformly interpreted in consideration of the overall interests of the insurance organization (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da36704 delivered on May 26, 1995). Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret that the mother of the above family limited driving special terms and conditions does not include the actual spouse of the named insured who is not the mother of the named insured, but the father of the named insured.

Nevertheless, solely for the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that Nonparty 1, who is the de facto spouse of Nonparty 2 at the time of the instant accident, was included in the Plaintiff’s mother, the registered insured of the instant insurance contract. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of the special terms and conditions for limited driving of families, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the part against the defendant among the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)