A. Whether Article 659(2) of the former Commercial Act (amended by Act No. 4470 of Dec. 31, 1991) violates Article 659(2) of the former Act

(b) scope of exemption clause from unauthorized Driving.

(c) Whether the insurer is exempted from liability where the insured has approved the non-licensed operation of a third party;

A. Article 659(2) of the former Commercial Act (amended by Act No. 4470 of Dec. 31, 1991) applies only to life insurance which covers death or bodily injury as an insured accident, and it does not apply to non-life insurance which compensates the insured's property damage caused by an insured accident. Since property and large-scale mutual aid business of the National Freight Trucking Association is designed to compensate for damage caused by an accident caused by the operation of an automobile by a member of the association, which is similar in nature to non-life insurance, it shall not be compensated for damage caused by an accident caused by an accident caused by the operation of the automobile, and therefore, it shall not be null and void on the ground that Article 659(2) and Article 663 of the former Commercial Act (amended by Act No. 4470 of Dec. 31, 191) is in violation of the aforementioned provisions.

B. In the event that a non-exclusive license exemption clause is deemed to apply to a non-exclusive license without possibility of controlling or managing the members of the Financial Cooperative, that clause is a clause which loses fairness contrary to the principle of good faith and is bound to be null and void in light of the provisions of Articles 6(1), 6(2), 7(2), and 7(3) of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act. Therefore, the above exemption exemption clause needs to be revised to the provisions applicable only to a case where a non-exclusive license is made in a situation in which the non-exclusive license is controlled or managed by the members of the Financial Cooperative, and specifically means a case where the non-exclusive license is made under the explicit or implied approval of the members of the Financial Cooperative.

(c) If a person who uses or drives a motor vehicle with the consent of the insured and is treated as an insured person under an insurance contract (this consent) is only approved, it does not constitute a case where the unauthorized driving under the foregoing paragraph (b) is under the control or management of the members of the Financial Cooperative.

A. Article 659(2) of the former Commercial Act (amended by Act No. 4470 of Dec. 31, 1991), Article 663 of the former Commercial Act (amended by Act No. 4470 of Dec. 31, 1991), Article 732-2(b) of the Commercial Act. Articles 2 and 105 of the Civil Act, Articles 6 and 7 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act

A. Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Meu26270 Decided February 26, 1991 (Gong1991, 1086) (Gong1992, 870) 91Da36642 Decided May 22, 1992 (Gong1992, 1961) (Gong1992, 1961) 2. Supreme Court Decision 92Da3899 Decided March 9, 193 (Gong1992, 652), Supreme Court Decision 92Da38928 Decided November 23, 1993 (Gong193, 1147)

- Limited Forwarding Cargo Operators

The National Freight Trucking Association

Gwangju High Court Decision 91Na1355 delivered on September 3, 1991

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Article 659(2) of the Commercial Act (amended by Act No. 4470, Dec. 31, 1991) that provides that the insurer shall not be exempted from liability to pay the insured amount even if the insured event occurred due to gross negligence of the policyholder, the insured, or the beneficiary of the insurance (amended by Act No. 4470, Dec. 31, 1991) applies only to personal insurance which covers death or bodily injury, and does not apply to non-life insurance which covers damage to the insured’s property caused by the insured event. Since the Defendant’s property and personal mutual aid business of this case are similar to non-life insurance in its nature to compensate for damage caused by the accident caused by the operation of the automobile by the partner’s liability for damages caused by the accident caused by the operation of the automobile, the insurer shall not be exempted from liability to compensate for the damage caused by the accident without a driver’s license, and it cannot be invalidated due to its violation of Articles 659(2) and 663 of the Commercial Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da296964, Feb. 2965, 29694, 209292, Feb.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

2. However, if the provision on the exemption fromless driving is interpreted as excluding all the cases of unauthorized driving without any limitation, a motor vehicle owner, such as theft driving or unauthorized driving, bears liability for damages to the victim and does not protect the owner of a driver's license without any control or management, and if the provision on the exemption fromless driving applies to the case of unlicensed driving without any control or management without any license, it shall be deemed as invalid in light of the provisions of Article 6 (1), (2), Article 7 (2) and (3) of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act, which have lost the fairness in violation of the principle of good faith, and thus, it shall be deemed that the above exemption fromless driving should be interpreted as applicable only to the case where it is done under the control or management of a member without a license, and it shall be deemed that the insured without any license or the insured without any license has no permission from the insured without any permission from the insured without any license or approval from the insured without any permission from the insured without any permission of the insured without any license (see Article 9 (2) of the Regulations).3).

However, according to the facts established by the court below, the non-party 1, an employee of the plaintiff, was involved in the accident of holding that the non-party 1, who did not have a driver's license nor had the non-party 1 drive the truck which is a mutual aid contract of this case. In such a case, the court below held that the above non-exclusive driver's license clause applies to this case even though the non-exclusive driver's license clause cannot be deemed to have been done with the plaintiff's explicit or implied approval. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the non-exclusive driver's license clause in the insurance contract, and therefore, it is justified to discuss the appeal to include this purport

3. 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.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)