(a) The case holding that the unlicensed driving of the insured's employee does not fall under the exemption clause for non-licensed driving under the comprehensive automobile insurance clause;

(b) In a case where the insured’s liability against a third party in liability insurance is determined by the method stipulated in the Commercial Act or the terms and conditions of insurance, whether the insurer may refuse to pay the insurance money under Article 724(1) of the Commercial Act

C. Whether the insurer of liability insurance is liable to pay damages for delay as determined between the insured and the victim

(a) The case holding that the unlicensed driving of the insured's employee does not fall under the exemption clause for non-licensed driving under the General Automobile Insurance Clause

B. In liability insurance, when the insured has paid damages to a third party or when the insured's liability to a third party is confirmed by such a method as stipulated in the Commercial Act or the terms and conditions of insurance, the insured may immediately exercise his right to claim insurance against the insurer, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 724 (1) of the Commercial Act, and the insurer shall not refuse the payment of the insured amount pursuant to Article 724 (1) of the Commercial Act against the insured seeking the payment of the insured amount in accordance

C. The insurer of liability insurance is obligated to pay all the insured regardless of the original or delay damages, unless there are special circumstances, such as that the amount of damages determined between the victim and the insured is an unreasonable loss not legally responsible.

(a) Article 105 of the Civil Act; Articles 6 and 7 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act; Articles 723(1), 723(2), and 724(1)(c) of the Commercial Act;

A. Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Meu23899 Decided December 24, 1991 (Gong1992,652), 93Da41211 Decided May 24, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 1796). Supreme Court Decision 92Da28631 Decided November 24, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 237), 94Da17888 Decided September 15, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 3365), 94Da28093 Decided September 26, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 3509).

Attorney Kim Jong-dae, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 94Na2238 delivered on May 3, 1995

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

Article 10 (1) 6 of the General Terms and Conditions for Business Motor Vehicle Insurance provides that "No person shall be compensated for any damage caused by an accident that occurred during the operation of the above vehicle without a license" shall be a provision applicable only to the case where the operation without a license is conducted under the circumstances that make it possible for policyholders or the insured to control or manage the foregoing vehicle, and the case where without a license is made under the circumstances that make it possible for the policyholder or the insured to control or manage the vehicle without a license means the case where the construction is conducted under the explicit or implied approval of the policyholder or the insured (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Meu23899 delivered on December 24, 191). The decision of the court below shall be held that the vehicle without a license should be kept under the relationship between the policyholder or the insured and the driver without a license, the situation and purpose of the operation without a license, the circumstances and purpose of the vehicle without a license, and the insured to ensure that the vehicle has been operated without a license 90Da14941 delivered on April 19.

If the facts are identical to the above, considering the relationship between the plaintiff and the non-party 1, the status of the operation and management of ordinary vehicles, and the specific circumstances and purpose of the operation of the non-party 1's without a license as indicated in the judgment, it is difficult to conclude that the plaintiff's implied approval was granted to the non-party 1's non-exclusive driving as the problem in this case.

In the same regard, the judgment of the court below that rejected the defendant's defense of exemption from the liability, which is the insurer, is justified in the case of the accident of this case, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit. There is no reason to discuss.

2. On the second ground for appeal

A. The so-called "liability insurance" like the defendant's comprehensive automobile insurance policy provides that the insured shall compensate for legal damages payable by the insured to a third party due to an insured event. Article 724 (1) of the Commercial Act provides that "In principle, an insurer shall not pay the insured amount to the insured before the insured is compensated by a third party for the damages caused by an accident attributable to the insured, in whole or in part." However, an insurer shall not pay the insured amount to the insured before the insured is compensated by the insured. However, Article 723 (1) of the Commercial Act provides that "if the insured becomes final and conclusive due to repayment to a third party, approval, compromise or judgment, the insurer shall, without delay, give notice thereof to the insurer." Article 723 (2) provides that "In the event that the insured becomes final and conclusive, the insurer shall pay the insured amount within 10 days from the date of receipt of notice under the preceding paragraph." Article 624 (1) of the ordinary insurance clauses of the defendant's automobile, "Article 98 (2) of the Commercial Act provides that the insured shall not be paid the insurance amount to the insured amount without delay."

Therefore, in this case where the non-party Lee Jae-ok and his family members filed a claim for damages against the plaintiff after the judgment on the claim for damages became final and conclusive, even if the plaintiff, who is the insured worker, did not yet pay the damages to Lee Jae-chul, etc., the defendant, who is the insurer, cannot refuse the payment of the insurance amount against the plaintiff under the provisions of Article 724 (1) of the Commercial Act. Therefore, the judgment below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the theory of lawsuit and Article 724 (1) of the Commercial Act, or in the incomplete deliberation.

B. In addition, the insurance contract of this case concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant does not limit the limit of the amount of compensation, and it is clear in the record that the insured is the amount including damages for delay to be paid to the insured by the final judgment with respect to the insurance amount to be paid to the insured in personal compensation under Article 15 of the above insurance clause. Thus, the defendant who is the insurer is obligated to pay the insured amount determined by the above final judgment to the insured in accordance with the above terms and conditions. Therefore, in the case where there is a final judgment between the victim and the insured, the insurance amount to be paid to the insured is limited to the amount of damages paid to the third party who is the actual victim and the amount of interest for delay after the payment date, under the premise that the judgment of the court below is limited to the amount of

3. As to the third ground for appeal

In light of the purport of Article 15 of the above insurance terms and conditions, the insurer is obligated to pay all the amount of damages determined between the victim and the insured to the insured, whether it is an original or late payment damages, unless there are special circumstances such as unfair damages not legally responsible (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da25004, Jan. 14, 1994). Thus, the insurer is obligated to pay the insured the insurance proceeds to the insured, and the court below does not need to re-determine the insurance proceeds by taking into account the above facts into account, even though the fact that the victim's negligence and the amount quoted in the above final and conclusive judgment between the plaintiff and the non-party 1, a driver, paid 8,00,000 won to the Lee Jae-chul as criminal agreement amount.

In the end, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is correct in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit.

4. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)