[1] Whether an insurer may terminate an insurance contract on the ground of a policyholder’s breach of duty of disclosure where the insurer violated the duty of explanation (negative)

[2] The case holding that an insurance company may not terminate the insurance contract on the ground of a breach of duty to notify the owner's driver's duty, where the insurance solicitor fails to fulfill the purpose of the main driver system and the duty to explain that the insurance contract may be terminated if the policyholder falsely notifies the main driver, even if the insurance solicitor has written his/her explanation to the effect that he/she will make an application for a driver's change in the main driver, at the time of concluding the comprehensive insurance contract for business automobile

[1] The insurer and the persons engaged in the conclusion or solicitation of the insurance contract shall, when entering into the insurance contract, bear specific and detailed explanation and explanation of the important contents of the insurance contract, such as the content of the insurance product, the premium rate system, and changes in the entries in the written subscription for the insurance contract, which are stipulated in the terms and conditions of the insurance contract, so if the insurer entered into the contract in violation of such duty to specify and explain the terms and conditions, the content of the terms and conditions cannot be asserted as the content of the insurance contract. Thus, even if

[2] The case holding that the insurance company may not terminate the insurance contract on the ground of a breach of duty to notify the principal driver of the insurance policy, in case where the insurance solicitor did not fulfill the purpose of the principal driver system and the duty to explain that the insurance contract may be terminated if the principal driver is falsely notified, even if the insurance solicitor entered in the subscription form for the insurance at the time of concluding the comprehensive insurance contract for business car, and the policyholder prepared a letter to the effect that the driver will make an application for a change in the principal driver

[1] Articles 638-3 and 651 of the Commercial Act / [2] Articles 638-3 and 651 of the Commercial Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Da4494 delivered on September 26, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3227) Supreme Court Decision 97Da47255 delivered on April 10, 1998 (Gong198Sang, 1283)

Han Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Jin-type et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Shin Young-tae (Attorney No. 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Chuncheon District Court Decision 95Da6034 delivered on June 26, 1996

Supreme Court Decision 96Da53314 delivered on March 14, 1997

1. The judgment of the court below is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

It is confirmed that there is no obligation listed in the separate sheet under the comprehensive automobile insurance contract of June 30, 1995 between the plaintiff and the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings, or there is no dispute between the parties, or there is evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and evidence Nos. 1 and 3 in the original trial.

A. On May 10, 1993, the Defendant concluded the comprehensive insurance contract of automobile for business with the insured as the defendant, the secured category, the substitute, and his own physical damage with respect to the truck owned by the Defendant on May 10, 1993. On May 10, 1994, the Defendant again concluded a contract of the same kind with the expiration of the insurance period, and on June 30, 1995, again entered into the same contract with the insurance period from 24:00 to 24:00 on June 30, 1996 (hereinafter “the insurance contract of this case”).

B. After that, around 17:10 on July 14, 1995, Nonparty 1, an employee of the defendant, was driving the above vehicle at the 'Ydong-dong' parking lot located in the 'Ydong-dong-dong' parking lot and caused the death of Nonparty 1, an employee of the defendant.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff violated the duty of disclosure as to the important matters of the insurance contract by the non-party 1, an employee of the defendant, who is the principal driver of the above automobile, despite the fact that the contract of this case was made with the intention of paying less insurance premiums. This constitutes grounds for termination of the contract of this case under the General Insurance Contract for Business Motor Vehicles, which is part of the contract of this case, and the plaintiff's termination of the insurance contract of this case on this ground that there is no obligation as stated in the attached documents against the defendant. The defendant alleged that the contract of this case due to the non-performance of the principal driver's duty as alleged by the plaintiff constitutes an important matter of the insurance contract of this case, and it should have been sufficiently explained at the time of the conclusion of the contract in order to claim it and exercise the right of termination as the contract of this case. However, it cannot be asserted as the content of the insurance contract of this case, since it was never explained as an important matter of the contract of this case

(b) Markets:

In full view of the aforementioned evidence and the purport of oral argument in Gap's testimony as new witness of the court of first instance after remanding and remanding, the non-party 1 mainly driven the above automobile for the purpose of his duties. The defendant owns the automobile separate from the above automobile and operated the automobile mainly for his duties. At the time of the conclusion of the insurance contract of this case, the defendant is 39 years old and the non-party 1 is 21 years old and is 461,030 won annual insurance premium in the case of the defendant being the main driver. The non-party 1 is 641,430 won in the case of the main driver, and the non-party 1 is 641,430 won in the subscription form of the insurance contract of this case. The non-party 1 is not a witness at the time of conclusion of the insurance contract of this case and the non-party 1 is not a witness at the time of the conclusion of the insurance contract of this case and is not aware of his intention or gross negligence in writing that the insurance contract of this case was rejected.

According to the above facts, at the time of the conclusion of the insurance contract of this case, the driver of the above automobile is not the defendant but the non-party 1. The non-party 1 bears specific and detailed obligation on important matters such as insurance premium, premium rate system and matters stated in the insurance contract of this case where the non-party 1 is the main driver, so who is the above two main drivers shall be important matters in the conclusion of the insurance contract of this case. However, the above terms and conditions which limit the rights of the policyholder or the insured shall be strictly interpreted in relation to the plaintiff who is the originator. Thus, the plaintiff may terminate the insurance contract only when the policyholder or the insured breached his duty to notify the "in writing" in accordance with the above terms and conditions. Thus, the insurer and the person engaged in the conclusion or solicitation of the insurance contract of this case bears an obligation to explain and explain important matters such as the insurance contract of this case, and if the insurer violates such duty to explain and explain, it cannot be asserted that the insurance contract of this case was terminated in writing 97.97 weeks.

Therefore, as to whether the Defendant received the above explanation on the main driver system from its employees, it is not believed that the first testimony at the original instance court and the trial after remanding the case to the lower court as well as after remanding the case, based on the content of the second testimony at the trial after the remand of the above witness. However, as seen above, the fact that the Defendant’s name is indicated on the main driver column of the insurance contract (Evidence A) is stated on the following day, and the above evidence No. 7 provides that “I will drive the vehicle without a driver, and I will inform the Defendant of the fact that I will be able to apply for change of the insurance contract at the time of hiring the vehicle after remanding the case, and I would like to be aware that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like know that I will not know the above.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case based on the premise that the contract of this case was lawfully terminated is without merit. Thus, the judgment of the court below is unfair in conclusion, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Choi Byung-jin (Presiding Judge)