Effect of the general terms and conditions of accident insurance provided that a simple drinking driving falls under reasons for exemption.

In light of the provisions of Articles 659(2) and 663 of the Commercial Act, even if the insured's accident is stipulated as one of the reasons for exemption under the general terms of accident insurance, it shall be deemed not to mean any case where the insured has caused an accident while driving under drinking, but it shall be deemed to mean only the case where the insured is assessed to the same extent as the insured's intentional occurrence is caused by the accident caused by the accident caused by the driver's death while driving under drinking condition, and the accident is caused by the accident caused by the accident. Thus, the ordinary terms of accident insurance that the degree of driving under drinking falls under the reason for exemption which does not reach such degree are in violation of the above provisions of the Commercial Act

Articles 659 and 663 of the Commercial Act

Plaintiff

Cambodian Megic Homecom Megrba Megratives

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 50 million won with 25 percent interest per annum from December 15, 198 to the date of full payment.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

On October 28, 1987, Nonparty 1 entered into an injury insurance contract with the insurer with the defendant company, Nonparty 1, the insured non-party 1, the beneficiary, and the insurance period from October 28, 1987 to October 16, 28, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "injury insurance contract in this case"), and if the insured died due to a sudden and remote accident during the insurance period, the insurer agreed to pay insurance money of KRW 50,00,000 to the beneficiary, and paid KRW 256,720 on the date of the contract with the defendant company, and there is no dispute between the parties, and as such, the insurer would not be obliged to pay KRW 50,000 on the part of the beneficiary of the above insurance contract, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, who was the beneficiary of the above injury No. 2, and the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, who was the beneficiary of the above insurance contract without dispute.

However, in light of the above facts, the defendant 1 was involved in the accident that occurred while driving the defendant 1's accident (the defendant 1's accident No. 4) and the defendant 1's insurance contract No. 6 (the defendant 1's main accident No. 8's accident No. 1's accident No. 6's death report No. 8's accident No. 1's accident No. 6's death) and the defendant 1's accident No. 8's accident No. 1's accident No. 6's accident No. 8's accident No. 1's accident No. 6's accident No. 8's accident No. 1's accident No. 6's accident No. 8's accident No. 6's accident No.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 25 percent per annum from December 15, 1988 to the date following the date of delivery of the complaint of this case, which is obvious from the date of occurrence of the above contract insurance money to the date of completion of the above insurance accident. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for damages for delay is justified, and the plaintiff's claim for damages for delay shall be accepted, and the cost of the lawsuit shall be borne by Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 6 (1) of the above Act, Article 199 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 199 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act shall be applied to the provisional execution declaration.

Judges Seo Jong-ho (Presiding Judge) Cho Young-ho (Presiding Judge)