[1] In the case of an insurance contract which covers the death of another person as an insured event, whether an insurance solicitor, etc. bears the duty to explain to the policyholder that the insurance solicitor, etc. should obtain the written consent of the other person

[2] Where a life insurance contract becomes null and void because an insurance solicitor did not fulfill his/her duty to explain the fact that the insurance solicitor is required to obtain the written consent of another person who is the insured from the policyholder in an insurance contract which covers the death of another person as an insured event, and the policyholder signs his/her signature on the part of the insured in lieu of the insured, the case holding that the insurance company shall be liable for damages under Article 158 (1) of

[1] Articles 638-3(1) and 731(1) of the Commercial Act, Article 158(1) of the former Insurance Business Act (amended by Act No. 6891 of May 29, 2003) / [2] Articles 638-3(1) and 731(1) of the Commercial Act, Article 158(1) of the former Insurance Business Act (amended by Act No. 6891 of May 29, 2003)

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 98Da23690 delivered on November 27, 1998 (Gong1999Sang, 39) Supreme Court Decision 98Da54830, 54847 delivered on April 27, 1999 (Gong199Sang, 1036), Supreme Court Decision 2001Da55499, 55505 delivered on November 9, 2001 (Gong2002Sang, 24)

The lower order of the day;

Korea Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Chang-hoon, Counsel for defendant)

Supreme Court Decision 2001Da49234 Delivered on March 29, 2002

Supreme Court Decision 2003Da24451 Delivered on July 22, 2003

Seoul High Court Decision 2003Na54126 delivered on October 23, 2003

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.

1. An insurance contract which covers the death of another person as an insured event shall obtain the written consent of the other person at the time of conclusion of the insurance contract (see Article 731(1) of the Commercial Act), and since this is a mandatory provision, the insurance contract concluded in violation of this provision is null and void (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da37084 delivered on November 22, 1996).

Therefore, in soliciting another person's life insurance contract, an insurance solicitor or insurance agency shall explain that another person's life insurance contract is not payable even if the insured person's written consent is not different from that of other insurance contracts, or the legal obligation to provide information is required in accordance with the principle of good faith. If an insurance solicitor or insurance agency sufficiently explain or did not provide information so that it can understand such content objectively, it shall not fulfill the duty of explanation or information requested in soliciting another person's life insurance contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da55499, 5505, Nov. 9, 201).

The court below, based on the evidence of the defendant, found that the plaintiff was unable to carry out the insurance contract with the defendant 2 at the latest on May 18, 1996 because it was constructed with the defendant's 5 insurance solicitor's own interest at the location of the accident, and that the plaintiff was unable to carry out the insurance contract with the defendant 40 million won per month on May 18, 196 and the insurance premium was 20 million won per month on August 4, 1997 with the defendant's non-permanent accident insurance contract with the non-permanent accident accident insurance company's non-permanent accident insurance contract with the non-permanent accident insurance company's non-permanent accident insurance contract with the non-permanent accident insurance purchaser's non-permanent accident insurance contract with the non-permanent accident insurance purchaser's non-permanent accident insurance contract with the non-permanent accident insurance purchaser's non-permanent accident insurance contract with the non-permanent accident insurance purchaser's non-permanent accident insurance proceeds' 190 million won per month on August 4, 1997.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to an insurance solicitor's duty of explanation or violation of information provision and proximate causal relation between the plaintiff's damage as alleged in the ground of appeal, and all of the precedents cited by the defendant as a ground of violation of precedents are related to the duty of explanation and explanation of insurance terms, and it is not appropriate to invoke in this case of this case of Article 158 (1) of the former Insurance Business Act on the ground that an insurance solicitor, etc.

2. The fact-finding or the determination of the ratio of comparative negligence in a tort compensation case belongs to the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court unless it is deemed that the facts-finding or the ratio is clearly unreasonable in light of the principle of equity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da17267, Jul. 25, 1995; 98Da38623, Feb. 22, 2000; 2001Da6251, Jan. 8, 2002).

The court below held that the damages suffered by the plaintiff, a policyholder, due to the plaintiff's non-acceptance of the life insurance contract of the other person covered by the accident compensation agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, becomes null and void on the grounds that all of the life insurance contracts of the other person covered by the accident compensation agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant were null and void without the written consent of the insured, shall be KRW 217 million,00,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00,00,00.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing plaintiff and the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)