[1] The purport of Article 158(1) of the former Insurance Business Act

[2] In a case where an officer or employee of an insurance agency who has not reported under the Insurance Business Act causes damage to a policyholder in the course of soliciting insurance contracts, whether the insurer is liable for damage under Article 158(1) of the former Insurance Business Act (affirmative)

[3] The case finding a proximate causal relationship between the insurance agency's employee's act of falsely explaining to the policyholder the type of motor vehicle available for driving by driver's license when concluding the motor vehicle insurance contract and the accident caused by the policyholder's mistake in driving the motor vehicle model, which caused the accident

[1] Article 158 (1) of the former Insurance Business Act (amended by Act No. 4865 of Jan. 5, 1995) provides that "insurers shall be liable for damages inflicted upon the policyholder in the course of soliciting by officers, employees, insurance solicitors or insurance agencies: Provided, That this provision shall not apply in cases where an insurance solicitor or insurance agency has given due attention in entrusting the relevant insurance solicitor or insurance agency, and has made efforts to prevent damages inflicted on the policyholder in the course of soliciting the relevant insurance solicitor or insurance agency." The above provision provides that "the insurer shall be liable for damages inflicted upon the policyholder in relation to the soliciting, and the insurer shall be liable for strict liability if the damage was caused by the act of an executive officer or employee of the said insurer, and shall be liable for damages close to the strict liability if the damage was caused by the act of an insurance solicitor or insurance agency of the said insurer, its significance is to protect the policyholder's interests and at the same time,

[2] Article 144 of the former Insurance Business Act (amended by Act No. 4865 of Jan. 5, 1995) provides that a person who is entitled to solicit insurance shall be one of the "an officer or employee of an insurance company on Jan. 1, 201, an insurance solicitor, an insurance agency or an insurance broker, or an officer or employee of an insurance agency or an insurance broker referred to in subparagraph 3 of the same Article who is reported under this Act". Thus, Article 158 (1) of the former Insurance Business Act shall apply in cases where an insurance agency's officer or employee referred to in subparagraph 4 causes loss to a policyholder in the course of soliciting insurance, because it constitutes "a case where an insurance agency causes loss to a policyholder in the course of soliciting insurance," and even if an officer or employee of an insurance agency who has not reported causes loss to a policyholder in the course of soliciting insurance, even if criminal punishment is imposed pursuant to Article 218 subparagraph 1 of the former Insurance Business Act, so long as the legal effect of soliciting insurance belongs to the insurance agency also accords with the purport of the above Article 158 (1).

[3] In concluding an insurance contract, the case holding that there is a proximate causal relation between the error of an insurance agency's employees and the damage for which the insurance agency's employees were unable to receive the insurance money, in case where the accident occurred while making an accident to drive a freight truck with 4.5 tons as a Class 2 ordinary driver's license and causing an accident to occur, and thus, the insurance agency's employees are not required to obtain the insurance money, and the insurance agency's employees are aware of the fact that the insurance agency's employees are liable to pay the insurance money. In such a case, due to the erroneous explanation by the insurance agency's employees, the insurance company concluded the insurance contract knowing that they were responsible for paying the insurance money, and the accident caused the victim who has the same driver's license to drive the freight truck with 4.5 tons, but

[1] Article 158 (1) of the former Insurance Business Act (amended by Act No. 4865 of Jan. 5, 1995) / [2] Articles 144 and 158 (1) of the former Insurance Business Act (amended by Act No. 4865 of Jan. 5, 1995) / [3] Article 750 of the Civil Act

[1] [2] [3] Supreme Court Decision 97Da26418 delivered on November 14, 1997 (the same purport)

Kim Jong-Jon (Attorney Jeong-tae, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Tran Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Jeong Jong-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 96Na3325 delivered on May 29, 1997

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

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the violation of the rules of evidence

원심판결 이유에 의하면, 원심은 거시 증거에 의하여 소외 김연달은 1992. 12.경부터 '성당대리점'이라는 상호로 피고의 보험대리점을 경영하면서 대구북부경찰서 칠성1가 파출소에서 경찰공무원으로 근무하던 소외 소외 1로 하여금 위 성당대리점 명의로 보험을 모집하도록 하여 오다가, 1994. 6. 초경에는 소외 1가 피고의 직원인 것처럼 피고의 '남대구영업소 소외 1'라고 인쇄된 명함(갑 제16호증)을 만들어 소외 1에게 교부하기까지 한 사실, 이에 따라 소외 1는 1993. 초경부터 보험업법 소정의 신고를 하지는 않았으나, 위 보험대리점의 사용인(이른바 보험외판원)으로서 보험계약을 체결하고자 하는 불특정 다수인을 상대로 보험 가입을 권유하거나 모집하여 왔으며, 이 사건 보험계약 체결 이전까지 매월 1건 이상의 보험계약을 소개하거나 모집하고 보험계약자로부터 보험료를 수령하여 직접 위 성당대리점의 사무실로 가져오거나 통장에 입금시키기도 한 사실, 한편 소외 소외 2은 1994. 7. 초순경 현대자동차 차량판매업소 직원으로 근무하던 소외 박정규로부터 소외 2이 소지하고 있는 제2종보통운전면허로도 4.5톤 화물트럭을 운전할 수 있다는 말을 듣고 4.5톤 화물트럭(이하 이 사건 트럭이라 한다)을 구입한 다음, 같은 달 18. 위 트럭에 관하여 자동차손해배상보장법상 책임보험만을 가입한 상태에서 자신의 명의로 소유권등록을 마친 사실, 소외 1는 평소 알고 지내던 소외 이을기를 통하여 소외 2이 1994. 7. 초순경 이 사건 트럭을 매수하였으나 책임보험에만 가입하였을 뿐 책임보험을 초과한 부분은 보험에 가입하지 않았다는 사실을 알고는 소외 2에게 위 트럭에 대하여 피고와 보험계약을 체결하도록 4-5회에 걸쳐 권유한 사실, 그러던 중 소외 1가 1994. 7. 21. 대구 북구 칠성1가 소재 소외 2의 사업장 안집에 소외 2 및 소외 박정규, 배선환, 권성준, 이을기 등이 있는 자리에서 소외 2에게 다시 피고와 보험계약을 체결할 것을 권유하였고, 이 때 함께 있었던 사람들 사이에 보험약관의 무면허운전 면책조항과 관련하여 소외 2이 소지하고 있던 제2종보통운전면허로 적재중량이 4.5톤인 위 트럭을 운전하는 경우 무면허운전에 해당하는지 여부가 문제되었으므로, 소외 1는 위 성당대리점의 영업주인 김연달에게 전화하여 이를 확인하려 하였으나 부재중이어서 확인하지 못하고 위 대리점의 여직원에게 문의하였으나 모른다고 하여 다시 소외 현대화재해상보험 칠성대리점에 문의하여 이러한 경우 무면허운전에 해당하지 않는다는 답변을 듣고는 이를 근거로 소외 2에게 제2종보통운전면허로 이 사건 트럭을 운전하더라도 무면허운전에 해당하지 않으므로 이 사건 보험계약을 체결하여도 아무런 문제가 없다고 재차 보험 가입을 권유하였고, 소외 2이 이에 동의함으로써 같은 날 소외 2과 피고 사이에 이 사건 트럭에 관하여 보험기간을 1994. 7. 21.부터 1년간, 대인배상한도를 무한으로 하는 자동차종합보험계약(이하 이 사건 보험계약이라 한다)을 체결하기에 이른 사실, 소외 1는 그 자리에서 위 남대구영업소로 전화를 걸어 위 영업소의 직원인 소외 황정희로 하여금 소외 2의 운전면허증과 차량등록증에 기재된 내용대로 업무용 자동차종합보험청약서(을 제4호증)에 기재하게 하였고, 소외 2로부터 보험료를 수령한 다음 미리 소지하고 있던 자동차보험특정물건공동인수가입증명서(보험료영수증, 갑 제5호증)에 등록번호, 취급점포 성당, 취급자 김연달이라고 기재하여 이를 소외 2에게 교부하였으며, 그 후 소외 2은 업무용 자동차종합보험증권(갑 제4호증)을 피고로부터 교부받은 사실 등을 인정한 다음, 위 인정의 소외 1가 보험계약을 체결하고자 하는 불특정 다수인을 상대로 보험 가입을 권유하거나 모집하여 오는 등 위 성당대리점의 사용인으로서 일하여 온 점, 소외 2과 피고 사이에 이 사건 보험계약이 체결되게 된 경위 등을 종합하여 보면, 소외 2이 이 사건 보험계약을 체결함에 있어서 제2종보통운전면허로 4.5톤 트럭을 적법하게 운전할 수 있는지 여부는 그 계약의 체결 여부를 결정하는데 가장 중요한 사항이 되었으므로 위 보험대리점의 사용인의 지위에 있는 소외 1로서는 이를 정확히 확인하여야 할 것임에도 불구하고 이를 소홀히 한 채 오히려 위에서 본 바와 같이 잘못된 설명을 함으로써 소외 2로 하여금 제2종보통운전면허로 4.5톤 트럭을 운전하더라도 보험금을 지급받는 데 아무런 장애가 없는 것으로 믿고 이 사건 보험계약을 체결하게 하였고, 위 보험대리점을 경영하는 김연달 또한 일정한 자격을 구비하지 않은 소외 1로 하여금 보험 모집을 하게 하여서는 안될 뿐만 아니라, 가사 이 사건 보험계약 체결 이전부터 소외 1로 하여금 사실상 보험 모집을 하게 하였고 계속하여 그 업무에 종사하게 할 필요가 있었다면, 보험계약자에게 판매하는 보험상품의 내용을 정확하게 설명할 수 있도록 소외 1를 철저하게 교육시키고, 보험계약을 체결함에 있어서는 적어도 보험계약자를 보험대리점에 오게 하거나 일정한 자격을 갖춘 직원을 함께 내보내 보험계약을 체결하도록 하여야 함에도 불구하고 이를 소홀히 한 잘못으로 인하여, 소외 2이 자신과 같은 제2종보통운전면허를 소지한 소외 소외 3로 하여금 이 사건 트럭을 운전하게 하였다가 그의 과실로 소외 김대환을 사망케 하는 이 사건 사고가 발생하였으나 도로교통법 제68조 제6항 , 같은법시행규칙 제26조 에 의하면 제2종보통운전면허의 소지자는 화물자동차의 경우 적재중량 4톤 이하만을 운전할 수 있다고 규정되어 있으므로 적재중량 4.5톤인 이 사건 트럭을 운전한 소외 3의 행위는 무면허운전에 해당하여 자동차종합보험보통약관 제10조 제1항 제6호에 정해진 무면허운전 면책조항에 따라 소외 2은 피고에게 이 사건 사고로 인한 손해에 대하여 보험금을 청구할 수 없게 되는 손해를 입게 되었다 할 것이므로, 피고는 보험자로서 보험업법 제158조 에 따라 보험대리점의 영업주인 김연달 및 그의 사용인인 소외 1가 보험 모집을 함에 있어서 보험계약자인 소외 2에게 가한 손해를 배상할 책임이 있다고 판단하였다.

Examining the relevant evidence in comparison with the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit. There is no reason for the argument.

2. As to the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 158 of the former Insurance Business Act

Article 158 (1) of the former Insurance Business Act (amended by Act No. 4865 of Jan. 5, 1995) provides that "insurers shall be liable for damages inflicted upon policyholders in the course of soliciting, by executives, employees, insurance solicitors, or insurance agencies: Provided, That this shall not apply in cases of insurance solicitors and insurance agencies, with due care in commissioning the relevant insurance solicitors or agencies, and with effort to prevent losses inflicted on policyholders in the course of soliciting them." The above provision provides that "insurers shall be liable for damages caused by the insurance solicitors or agencies, and there is significance in protecting the interests of policyholders by imposing strict liability on policyholders for damages caused by acts of officers and employees of the said insurer, and in cases of acts of insurance solicitors or agencies of the said insurer, they shall be liable for damages close to strict liability, and in cases of acts of insurance solicitors or agencies, they shall be liable for the sound fostering of insurance business at the same time.

Meanwhile, Article 144 of the former Insurance Business Act provides that a person who is entitled to solicit insurance shall be one of the executive officers or employees of an insurance company on January 1, 2, insurance solicitor, insurance agency or insurance broker on March 3, 200, and an executive officer or employee of an insurance agency or insurance broker on April 3, 200, who is reported under this Act. Thus, Article 158 (1) of the former Insurance Business Act shall apply in cases where an insurance agency causes loss to a policyholder in the course of soliciting insurance, even in cases where an executive officer or employee of an insurance agency under subparagraph 4 causes loss to a policyholder in the course of soliciting insurance, and Article 158 (1) of the former Insurance Business Act shall also apply in cases where an executive officer or employee of an insurance agency who did not report causes loss to a policyholder in the course of soliciting insurance. Even if a person is subject to criminal punishment under Article 218 (1) 1 of the former Insurance Business Act, so long as the legal effect of soliciting insurance belongs to an insurance agency, such interpretation shall also conform to the purport of the above Insurance Business Act.

According to the facts duly established by the court below, since the above non-party 1 continued to negotiate insurance contracts for about one year and six months for the defendant's insurance agency, the above non-party 1, even though he did not report it in accordance with the above former Insurance Business Act, he is an employee of the Kim So-month, an insurance agency, and thus, he shall be liable for damages incurred to the above non-party 2 in soliciting insurance contracts in accordance with Article 158 (1) of the above former Insurance Business Act.

In addition, according to the facts duly established by the court below, in the conclusion of the insurance contract of this case, when driving a freight truck with 4.5 tons as Class 2 ordinary driver's license and causing an accident, it becomes the most important factor in determining whether the defendant is liable to pay insurance money for the damage because it does not fall under the license without any license, and in this case, the non-party 2 knew that the non-party 1 was liable to pay insurance money to the non-party 2 by falsely explaining this error that the non-party 1 was responsible to pay insurance money, and the non-party 3, who is the non-party 1 holding the same driver's license, was involved in the accident while driving the freight truck of this case 4.5 tons, but the non-exclusive exemption clause under the General Terms and Conditions of Automobile Insurance was applied, so long as there is a proximate causal relation between the non-party 1's error and the damage that

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 158 of the former Insurance Business Act, such as the theory of lawsuit. There is no ground for appeal.

3. As to the misapprehension of legal principles as to offsetting negligence

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the above non-party 2, as well as the above non-party 2, was aware of the fact that the above non-party 1, not an insurance solicitor or insurance agency's regular employee, actually engaged in insurance solicitation, and was in fact engaged in the insurance solicitation. In determining whether to conclude the insurance contract of this case upon the non-party 1's recommendation, the court below erred in concluding the insurance contract of this case with the non-party 1's beliefing only the end of the non-party 1 and concluding the insurance contract of this case without actively confirming the fact as to whether the non-party 2 is able to drive the freight of 4.5 tons with his own Class 2 ordinary driver's license. The court below determined that the non-party 2's

In light of the records, the recognition of the above negligence ratio by the court below is not considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to comparative negligence, such as theory of lawsuit. There is no reason for the discussion.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)