logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2015.05.14 2014다6640
채무부존재확인
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Northern District Court Panel Division.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. The summary of the judgment below is as follows.

The general terms and conditions of the instant insurance contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s wife D provide that “if the insured motor vehicle is a passenger vehicle or a passenger bus, any damage arising from the use or lease of the insured motor vehicle repeatedly for the purpose of charge or compensation,” as the exemption clause that is not covered by the insurer under the liability of the Large Compensation II (hereinafter referred to as “exclusive transport exemption clause”).

At the time of concluding the instant insurance contract, there is insufficient evidence to prove that the Plaintiff explained that the Plaintiff was not liable for compensation under the instant insurance contract even in cases where pedestrians, etc., who were not passengers, died or were injured due to an accident that occurred while using the insured motor vehicle for commercial transport beyond the existence of the terms of commercial transport exemption clause, to the Defendant. However, since the Defendant did not know of the specific scope of application of the terms of commercial transport exemption clause, the Plaintiff’s explanation obligation is not exempted.

Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot assert the above terms and conditions of commercial transport exemption as the content of the insurance contract. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant, the insured of the instant insurance contract, did not have any obligation to pay the insurance proceeds to the Defendant for the instant accident, which fell short of C, should not exceed the liability of personal transport I.

2. The lower court’s determination cannot be accepted for the following reasons.

(1) Even if a matter falls under an important content of the insurance terms and conditions, if the policyholder or his/her agent is well aware of the content thereof, the relevant terms and conditions shall be immediately the content of the contract and shall be binding upon the parties.

arrow