A. Whether the application of Article 679 of the Commercial Act may be excluded by a contract between the parties (affirmative)

B. Whether the provision of the general terms and conditions of automobile insurance, which excludes the application of the above Article 63 as a matter of principle, is null and void as an unfair terms and conditions contrary to the good faith principle stipulated under Article 6 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act, contrary to Article 63 of the Commercial Act prohibiting any disadvantageous change to policyholders

C. Whether the transferee who acquired an insurance vehicle and completed the registration for vehicle transfer in his name constitutes a person using or managing an automobile with the consent of the registered insured under the above terms and conditions (negative)

A. The purport of Article 679 of the Commercial Act is to presume the parties' ordinary intent as the right under the insurance contract was transferred in relation to the transferor of the transferee where the subject matter of the insurance is transferred together with the right under the insurance contract in relation to the transferor of the transferee, and to affirm it from a social and economic point of view, and to deem it null and void as a juristic act contrary to public order and good morals. Therefore, the above provision is a voluntary provision, and therefore, the application of the above provision may be excluded

B. Although the provisions of the General Insurance Terms and Conditions for Motor Vehicles excludes the application of Article 679 of the Commercial Act in the automobile insurance contract in principle, it often causes the replacement of motor vehicles which are the subject matter of the insurance in the above contract, and in this case there is a need to use the insurance contract in the form of replacing motor vehicles in order to receive premium discount benefits due to accidents, etc., and on the other hand, the insurer also has an important interest in the replacement of the insured who is likely to cause a significant change in the foundation of the insurance contract, such as a change in the predicted risk rate, and there is a need to be given an opportunity to obtain an opportunity to maintain or change the insurance relation. Thus, the above provisions of the General Insurance Terms and Conditions cannot be deemed null and void as an unfair contract contrary to the good faith principle as stipulated in Article 63 of the Commercial Act.

(c) If a person who is in charge of the use or management of a motor vehicle with the consent of the registered insured under the Automobile Insurance Clause provides as the insured, the registered insured refers to the insured who enjoys the operation control or the operation benefits of the insured motor vehicle, and if the transferee was involved in the accident while the transferee was driving the motor vehicle under the name of the transferee after the transfer of the insurance motor vehicle and the registration of the transfer of the motor vehicle was completed, the transferor lost the operation interest or the operation control of the motor vehicle by transferring the ownership of the motor vehicle to the transferee, so the transferee shall not be deemed to be a person who is in charge of

(b)Article 679(b) of the Commercial Code; Article 663 of the Commercial Code; Article 6(c) of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act; Article 719 of the Commercial Code;

(a)B. (c) Supreme Court Decision 91Da7163 delivered on August 9, 1991 (dong). Supreme Court Decision 90Da7708 delivered on December 11, 1990 (Gong1991, 461) Decision 91Da14796 delivered on July 26, 1991 (Gong191, 2250);

Plaintiff 1 and 3 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na1448 decided May 1, 201

Busan High Court Decision 90Na6576 delivered on December 7, 1990

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

According to Article 679 of the Commercial Code, the right arising from an insurance contract shall be presumed to be transferred at the same time when the insured transfers the subject matter of the insurance. The purport of the above provision is that where the subject matter of the insurance is transferred, the right under an insurance contract is transferred at the same time in relation to the transferor of the transferee, and the parties' ordinary intent is presumed to have been presumed to have been transferred at the same time, and this is affirmed from a socioeconomic point of view, and it shall not be construed to be null and void as a juristic act contrary to the public order and good morals. Therefore, the above provision is a voluntary provision

However, Article 42 of the General Terms and Conditions for Automobile Insurance of the defendant company provides that "if the insured transfers an automobile during the insurance period, the rights and obligations arising from the insurance contract shall not be succeeded to the transferee of the rights and obligations of the policyholder and the insured. However, the insured or transferee shall succeed to the rights and obligations arising from the insurance contract, and if the insured or transferee notifies the company in writing and obtains approval from the company, this insurance contract shall apply to the assignee from that time." In principle, in the automobile insurance contract, Article 679 of the Commercial Act shall be excluded in principle. In addition, the above provisions of the terms and conditions frequently require the replacement of the automobile which is the object of the insurance in the automobile insurance contract, and there is a need for the policyholder to use the insurance contract in the form of replacing the automobile in order to receive premium discounts benefits on account of an accident, etc. (see Article 43 of the above insurance contract). Meanwhile, the insurer shall also be justified in terms of the change in the rate of predicted risk (the current automobile insurance system has different interests in the insured's use, age, experience, and gender, and gender, etc.).

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

Article 22 (1) 3 of the Automobile Insurance Clause of the defendant company provides that the insured person who uses or manages an automobile with the permission of the registered insured person. The registered insured person referred to in this context refers to the insured who enjoys the operation control or the operation benefits of the insured person. As legally determined by the court below, if the non-party 1 transferred the automobile in its judgment to the non-party 2 and completed the vehicle transfer registration under the name of the above non-party 2, and the non-party 3, who is the driver employed by the above non-party 2, was involved in the accident while driving the above vehicle, the above non-party 1 lost the automobile operation interest or the operation control by transferring the ownership of the above vehicle to the non-party 2, so the above non-party 2 cannot be regarded as a person who uses or manages the automobile with the permission of the registered insured person (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da14796 delivered on July 26, 191).

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the scope of the insured, such as the theory of lawsuit. The precedents cited by the theory of lawsuit cannot serve as a proper precedent in this case, unlike this case and facts. There

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

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-won