Where an insurer concludes an insurance contract in violation of the duty to specify and explain the terms and conditions of the insurance, whether the insurer may terminate the insurance contract on the ground of a policyholder’s breach of duty of disclosure (negative)

Upon entering into an insurance contract, the insurer and the persons engaged in the conclusion or solicitation of the insurance contract are obligated to specify and explain the important contents of the insurance contract, such as the content of the insurance product, the insurance premium rate system, and changes in the terms and conditions of the insurance application, which are contained in the terms and conditions. Thus, if the insurer entered into the insurance contract in violation of the duty to specify and explain such terms and conditions, it cannot be asserted as the content of the terms and conditions as the content of the insurance contract. Thus, even if the policyholder or its agent violated the duty to notify under the terms and conditions,

Article 651 of the Commercial Act, Article 3 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act, Article 156 (1) 1 of the Insurance Business Act

Supreme Court Decision 94Da17970 delivered on October 14, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2979 delivered on August 11, 1995) 94Da52492 delivered on August 11, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3121)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Sung-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Dok Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Maximum ex officio)

Busan High Court Decision 94Na3926 delivered on October 19, 1995

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

As to the Grounds of Appeal

1. The insurer and the persons engaged in the conclusion or solicitation of the insurance contract are obligated to specify and explain the important contents of the insurance contract, such as the content of the insurance contract, the insurance premium rate system, and changes in the terms and conditions of the insurance application, which are contained in the insurance contract, in conclusion of the insurance contract. Thus, when the insurer concludes the insurance contract in violation of the duty to specify and explain the terms and conditions, the content of the terms and conditions cannot be asserted as the content of the insurance contract. Thus, even if the policyholder or his agent violated the duty to notify the terms and conditions, the insurance contract cannot be terminated for this reason (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da52492, Aug. 11, 1995; 91Da31883, Mar. 10, 1992).

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the non-party 1, an insurance solicitor, at the time of entering into the insurance contract of this case based on the evidence of this case, did not explain the duty of disclosure under the insurance contract concerning the principal driver, such as questioning the plaintiff or his agent whether the plaintiff is driving the motor vehicle of this case, or whether the principal driver is driving the motor vehicle of this case, the rate of the driver's rate is changed depending on who is the principal driver, and eventually the insurance premium rate is changed. The non-party 3, who introduced the insurance subscription form, did not explain the duty of disclosure under the insurance contract concerning the principal driver, and did not understand the principal driver of this case as to the principal driver of the motor vehicle of this case, but did not know the fact that it would be any problem if the principal driver is the owner of the motor vehicle of this case, and affixed the plaintiff's seal without the consent of the plaintiff to the plaintiff in the above insurance subscription form, and it did not recognize the facts in violation of the rules of evidence.

3. If the facts were as determined by the court below, the defendant company, the insurance solicitor of this case, or the non-party 1, the insurance solicitor of this case, failed to fulfill its duty to notify the main contents of the insurance contract to the non-party 2, the policyholder of this case, or his agent. Thus, in light of the above legal principles, the defendant cannot terminate the insurance contract of this case on the ground of the violation of the duty to notify by the policyholder of this case.

In the same purport, the decision of the court below that the termination of the insurance contract of this case is invalid is justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the duty of disclosure like the theory of lawsuit and the terms and conditions of the insurance contract. All arguments are without merit.

4. Accordingly, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)