The case holding that the insurer is not liable pursuant to the non-licensed exemption clause on the ground that the non-licensed operation of a third party was conducted under the control or management of the insured.

The case holding that the insurer is not liable pursuant to the non-licensed exemption clause on the ground that the non-licensed operation of a third party was conducted under the control or management of the insured.

Article 659 of the Commercial Code, Article 105 of the Civil Code, Articles 6 and 7 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Meu23899 delivered on December 24, 1991 (Gong1992,652) 92Da38928 delivered on March 9, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 1147) 93Da41547 delivered on November 23, 1993 (Gong194Sang, 187)

Attorney Cho Chang-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellant] Korea Automobile Insurance Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Incheon District Court Decision 92Na5850 delivered on July 9, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the plaintiff was not liable for damages caused by the non-party 1's operation of the above vehicle to the non-party 1's company due to the non-party 2's accident, which caused the non-party 1's accident to be covered by the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act because the non-party 1's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's license of the above non-party 1's driver's driver's driver's driver's license of the above non-party 4's driver's driver's driver's license of the above non-party 1's driver's driver's driver's license of the above.

In light of the records and comparison of relevant evidence, the above recognition judgment of the court below is just and it cannot be viewed that there is an error of law such as misapprehension of legal principles as the theory of lawsuit, etc. in the judgment below. There is no reason to argue.

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

Justices Kim Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)