[1] The scope of insurer's duty to clarify and explain the insurance terms and conditions

[2] The case holding that where an insurer violated the duty to specify and explain the terms and conditions of commercial transport exemption when concluding an automobile insurance contract for business, the insured cannot claim the exemption from liability for an accident that occurred during commercial transport

[1] In the conclusion of an insurance contract, an insurer shall specify and explain in detail the important contents of the insurance clause, such as the content of the insurance contract, the premium rate system, etc., if the policyholder knows, or if it is common and common in the transaction, even if there is no separate explanation, or if it is not merely a matter that is likely to be sufficiently anticipated, or that is likely to be bound by the law, and if the insurer concludes an insurance contract in violation of the duty to specify and explain such insurance clause, it shall not claim the content of the terms and conditions as the content of

[2] The case holding that where an insurer violates the duty to specify and explain the terms and conditions of commercial transport exemption when concluding an automobile insurance contract for business, the insured cannot claim the exemption from liability for an accident that occurred during commercial transport

[1] Article 3 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act, Article 638-3 of the Commercial Act / [2] Article 3 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act, Article 651 of the Commercial Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Da39308 delivered on April 14, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 1320), Supreme Court Decision 98Da32564 delivered on November 23, 1998 (Gong199Sang, 41 delivered on March 9, 1999), Supreme Court Decision 98Da4342, 43359 delivered on March 9, 199 (Gong199Sang, 634)

Il Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Jin-jin, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Lee Young-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Daegu High Court Decision 98Na3000 delivered on November 11, 1998

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

1. The court below found that the contract terms and conditions of the insurance contract of this case for passenger cars owned by the plaintiff and the defendant as the insured and provided for so-called compensation exemption for losses caused by accidents that occur when they use or lease insured automobiles repeatedly for the purpose of fees or prices. The defendant returned to the country before entering into the insurance contract of this case and transported them to the factory upon request from three persons, such as the non-party 1, who will deliver them again, and received freight from the defendant for the transportation of the freight. The court below held that the defendant did not provide the defendant with an explanation of the insurance contract of this case for compensation exemption if he did not use the insured automobile for the above purpose, but did not provide the defendant with an explanation of the insurance contract of this case for compensation exemption for losses incurred by the non-party 2 and the defendant's duty to inform the non-party 1 as the insurance solicitor of the insurance contract of this case that he would not use the insured automobile for the above purpose and did not provide the defendant with an explanation of the insurance contract of this case's insurance contract of this case for compensation exemption.

2. However, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below.

In the conclusion of an insurance contract, an insurer shall specify and explain in detail the important contents of the terms and conditions, such as the content of the insurance contract or the premium rate system, if the policyholder knows, or it is common and common in the transaction, and if it does not include any matters which could sufficiently be anticipated even if there exists no separate explanation, or matters which are already determined by the Acts and subordinate statutes, and if the insurer concludes an insurance contract in violation of such terms and conditions, it shall not claim the content of the terms and conditions as the content of the insurance contract.

In this case, the defendant, upon contact with the plaintiff company, which concluded an insurance contract for all vehicles to purchase new vehicles and purchase the insurance, requested the defendant to purchase the insurance, and the non-party 2, an insurance solicitor of the plaintiff company, designated the type of insurance directly to ask the defendant to use the vehicle for the purpose of the insurance. At the time, the defendant, while entering several people and conducting funeral, requested the defendant to choose the types of insurance that can receive all benefits while using the insured vehicle. The non-party 2 did not ask the defendant to do so even though he did not know that the defendant would directly perform a funeral by using the vehicle, but did not ask the defendant about the purpose of use of the vehicle. The non-party 2 did not know that the insurance contract was merely a separate or detailed statement about the insurance premium rate or the insurance premium rate, and thus, the plaintiff could not be viewed as being a separate or detailed exemption clause, and thus, the plaintiff could not be viewed as being aware that it did not have any specific or detailed explanation about the terms and conditions of the insurance contract.

In addition, based on the evidence No. 14 (C. 14), the court below found that the defendant actively notified false facts to the plaintiff on the ground that it stated that the defendant was stated as "the funeral service for anyone on board and in favor of any other person" and that the defendant did not receive money on the body of the non-party 2 who asked for the vehicle's use, and that the defendant did not have any duty to specify and explain the above exemption clause. However, the evidence No. 14 was a document prepared by the plaintiff company's employee on behalf of the defendant after the occurrence of the insurance accident and the issue of whether the defendant's commercial transport was made, and that the non-party 2 did not ask the plaintiff as to whether the non-party 2 will provide for commercial transport with the defendant's insurance vehicle. In light of the above, it is doubtful that the non-party 2 did not specifically ask the plaintiff about the use of the textile system with the insured vehicle, even if the defendant knew that he did not explain the above false facts to the plaintiff, the court below did not have any such duty to explain.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts contrary to the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the duty to clarify and explain the insurance terms, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the allegation in the grounds of appeal

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)