[1] The scope of application of the exemption clause for unlicensed driving

[2] The meaning of "the case where the insured is stolen" under the special terms and conditions of limited driving for over 26 years of age

[3] Criteria for determining whether the insured's implied approval for non-licensed or stolen driving is granted or not

[4] The case rejecting the defense that the non-exclusive driver's license exemption clause and the limited driver's license exemption clause are granted under the limited driver's license exemption clause

[1] The clause of exemption from driving without a license to the effect that the driver of an insured motor vehicle does not compensate for any damage caused by an accident that occurred while the driver of an insured motor vehicle under the explicit and implied approval of the insured in automobile insurance applies only to the case where the driver without a license was under the control or management of the policyholder or the insured.

[2] In automobile insurance, "the case where the insured is stolen" as stipulated in Article 2 (2) of the Special Terms and Conditions for Limited Driving between the age of 26 and the age of 26 refers to the case where a third party drives an insured automobile without any explicit or implied intent of the insured.

[3] The insured's implied approval (the intention) is applied to the case where a non-licensed or stolen driver's licenseless clause or "the insured driver's license under Article 2 (2) of the Special Terms and Conditions for Limited Driving for 26 or more years old is stolen." Thus, the insured's implied approval (the intention) is limited to the case where there are circumstances that make it possible to conceal the approval to the same extent as the case where the intention of approval for non-licensed or stolen driver's license is explicitly expressed. Whether a non-licensed or stolen driver's license or stolen driver's license was granted under the policyholder or the insured's implied approval, the relation between the non-licensed or stolen driver and the insured, the situation and purpose of the operation, the situation of the driver's license or stolen driver's license or stolen driver's license, and the attitude of the policyholder or the insured's driver's license or stolen driver's license.

[4] The case rejecting the defense that the non-exclusive driver's license exemption clause and the limited driver's license exemption clause are granted according to the limited driver's license exemption clause

[1] Article 659(1) of the Commercial Act, Article 105 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 726-2 of the Commercial Act, Article 105 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 659(1) and 726-2 of the Commercial Act, Article 105 of the Civil Act / [4] Articles 659(1) and 726-2 of the Commercial Act, Article 105 of the Civil Act

[1] [3] Supreme Court Decision 98Da1072 delivered on July 10, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2075), Supreme Court Decision 98Da61395 delivered on April 23, 199 (Gong199Sang, 1010), Supreme Court Decision 98Da42189 delivered on November 26, 199 (Gong2000Sang, 200Ha, 1526 delivered on May 30, 200), Supreme Court Decision 99Da6236 delivered on May 30, 200 (Gong200Ha, 1526) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 93Da20313 delivered on May 10, 1994 (Gong1994, 1632 delivered on April 29, 195)

Federation of Korea Passenger Transport Business Cooperatives (Ynam Law Firm, Attorneys Geum-tae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Shindong Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Byung-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daegu High Court Decision 2001Na6368 delivered on April 25, 2002

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

In automobile insurance, the clause of non-licensed driving exemption applies only to cases where a non-licensed driving took place under the control or management of the policyholder or the insured (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da66236, May 30, 2000). The term "case where a driver of an insured motor vehicle was stolen" under Article 2 (2) of the Special Terms and Conditions for Limited Driving when a third party drives an insured motor vehicle without explicitly or implied intent of the insured (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da40548, Feb. 25, 2000, etc.). The term "the case where a driver of an insured motor vehicle was stolen" refers to the case where the insured motor vehicle was driven by a third party without any specific or implied intention of the insured (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da40548, Feb. 25, 200). Since the term of non-licensed driving exemption clause is equally applied to the case where an insured motor vehicle is clearly expressed in the situation where the insured's intention to obtain a license or approval for a stolen driving, etc.

The judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, based on the defendant's non-exclusive driver's non-exclusive driver's defense that the non-party 1 should be exempted pursuant to the defendant's non-exclusive driver's exemption clause and the special driver's limited driver's exemption clause, and the non-party 1, the insured, was directly managing the key of the above vehicle which the non-party 1 was driving for home and personal business while operating the restaurant. However, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, who was 15 years old at the time of the accident, should not be viewed as being exempt from the driver's license, because the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the above vehicle's non-party 1's non-party 2, the above reasons for rejection.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)