The burden of proof of violation of duty of disclosure and the absence of causation

In the conclusion of an insurance contract, when it is proved that the violation of the duty of disclosure was not affected by the occurrence of the insurance accident, namely, that the insurance policyholder was not informed of the occurrence of the insurance accident or was not based on the false notification, the insurer may not terminate the insurance contract on the ground of the above misrepresentation notice, but the burden of proof as to the occurrence of the insurance accident and the absence of causation is the policyholder.

Article 651 of the Commercial Act, proviso of Article 655 of the Commercial Act, Article 261 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 92Da28259 delivered on October 23, 1992 (Gong1992, 3227) 92Da52085, 52092 delivered on April 13, 1993 (Gong1993, 1389)

National Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and two others

Man-chan

Appellant-stop and nine others, Defendant and the Intervenor joining the Defendant, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na53820 delivered on September 10, 1993

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant and the defendant joining the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

Examining the evidence cited by the court below in comparison with the records, the court below, as the insurer, knew or was unable to know the fact that the principal driver was false at the time of the contract through Nonparty Kim-hee, which was the cause of insurance solicitation, and thus, rejected the defendant's defense that the termination of the insurance contract of this case on the ground of the principal driver's false notice is unlawful, is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence pointing out by the theory of lawsuit or any violation of the incomplete deliberation. The argument is without merit.

2. On the second ground for appeal

In the conclusion of an insurance contract, when it is proved that the violation of the duty of disclosure was not affected by the occurrence of the insurance accident, that the insurance company cannot terminate the insurance contract on the ground of the above misrepresentation notice, pursuant to the proviso of Article 655 of the Commercial Act, when it is proved that the occurrence of the insurance accident was not notified or that it was not due to the false notification, the insurer cannot terminate the insurance contract on the ground of the above misrepresentation notice, but the burden of proving the existence of the occurrence of the insurance accident and the absence of the causation is borne by the policyholder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da28259, Oct. 23, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 92Da52085, 52092, Apr. 13, 1993; 92Da52092, Apr. 13, 1993), if there is a room to look at the existence of the causation, the above proviso should not be applied.

In full view of the macroscopic evidence, the lower court determined the following facts: (a) when Nonparty 1 purchased a car in the name of the Defendant and concluded a comprehensive personal driving insurance contract for the said car on behalf of the Defendant with the Plaintiff, the lower court notified Nonparty 1, a married passenger of 46 years old who did not drive the said car at the age of 26, even though Nonparty 1 was unmarried Nonparty 26 years old; and (b) at the time of the accident, the lower court determined that: (c) around December 18, 1990 when Nonparty 1 had the deceased 27 years old-old Sincheon-gun-gun, Yongcheon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City driving the said car at the age of 18:20, when the accident occurred; (d) caused the error of entering the said car with the opposite line from the border road located in the middle of the central separation zone to the opposite line; and (e) caused the death of 7 persons, such as the above gate number and the network Nonparty 1.

Under this factual basis, for the defendant to be deemed to have no causal relationship between the defendant's breach of duty of disclosure and the accident, the defendant, as the policyholder, should not actively prove that the accident in this case was committed regardless of the driver's driver's driving activity at the time of the accident. Accordingly, the court below's rejection of the defendant's assertion without credibility, which did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the causal relationship pointed out by the defendant.

In addition, even in cases where a person other than the state driver notified so as to be driven by a person other than the state driver so notified, if the state driver did not have any causal relationship with the occurrence of an insurance accident, as long as the individual motor vehicle comprehensive insurance, such as this case covered, even if the state driver did not have any causal relationship with the occurrence of an insurance accident, the matters pertaining to the state driver would not be an important matter subject to the duty of disclosure, and the non-performance notice of the state driver would result in the failure of the State driver, which does not constitute the cause of termination of the insurance contract. It

3. Accordingly, 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.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)