In a case where an insurance solicitor’s position under the former Insurance Business Act and an insurance solicitor becomes aware of “the fact that the risk of the occurrence of an insurance accident is significantly changed or increased” subject to the duty to notify, whether it can be seen that the insurer was aware of such fact (negative)

An insurance solicitor under the former Insurance Business Act (amended by Act No. 6891 of May 29, 2003) is only a person mediating the conclusion of an insurance contract on behalf of a specific insurer, but does not have the authority to conclude an insurance contract on behalf of the insurer and does not have the authority to receive notice or notification against the insurer by the policyholder or the insured. Thus, even if the insurance solicitor was aware of the “fact that the risk of the insurance accident is significantly changed or increased,” which is the subject of the notification duty, it cannot be said that the insurer was aware of the above fact.

Article 2 (3) of the former Insurance Business Act (amended by Act No. 6891 of May 29, 2003) (see current Article 2 subparagraph 8 of the Act), Article 652 (1) of the Commercial Act

Supreme Court Decision 79Da1234 delivered on October 30, 1979 (Gong1980, 12336) Supreme Court Decision 98Da32564 delivered on November 27, 1998 (Gong199Sang, 41)

Plaintiff (Attorney Park Sung-won et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Lee Jae-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2005Na39527, 39534 decided Feb. 8, 2006

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

An insurance solicitor under the former Insurance Business Act (amended by Act No. 6891 of May 29, 2003 and enforced before the expiration of three months) is merely a person mediating the conclusion of an insurance contract on behalf of a specific insurer, and there is no authority to conclude an insurance contract on behalf of the insurer, and there is no authority to receive notice or notice from the policyholder or the insured against the insurer (see Supreme Court Decisions 79Da1234, Oct. 30, 1979; 98Da32564, Nov. 27, 1998; 98Da32564, Nov. 27, 1998). Even if the insurance solicitor was aware of the “the fact that the risk of the insurance accident is significantly modified or increased” subject to the duty to notify, it cannot be said that the insurer was aware of the above fact.

In the same purport, the court below is just in rejecting the defendant's assertion of the obligation to notify the fact that the non-party, an insurance solicitor, was aware of the change in the type of business operated in the insurance-purpose building of this case, or that the defendant cannot be deemed to have notified the plaintiff of the change in the type of business as above, although the non-party, who is the insurance solicitor, was aware of the fact that the type of business operated in the insurance-purpose building of this case was changed, and there is no violation of the law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to insurance solicitors

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Justice)