The case holding that the non-business motor vehicle is charged while operating a non-business motor vehicle, but it does not fall under the scope of exemption under the general terms and conditions of automobile insurance

A company established for the purpose of general tourism and recreation business receives 120 won per passenger while operating a non-business motor vehicle, but the purpose of operation was to ensure the convenience of commuting to and from the territory of the U.S. Air Base and its families in Korea, and the general public operated only a section of about 7.4 kilometers by prohibiting boarding, and received the same amount as the city bus in order to meet the maintenance expenses, etc., it cannot be deemed that the non-business motor vehicle, which is the exemption clause under the general terms and conditions of automobile insurance, falls under the case of using the motor vehicle for profit-making purposes, in light of the purpose of use, operation purpose, operation section, and the number of charges.

Articles 65 and 666 of the Commercial Act

Ro-gu Amerasia Co., Ltd.

First Fire and Marine Insurance Corporation

Jeonju District Court of the first instance (87Gahap94) Gunsan Branch Court of the District Court of the first instance

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 14,300,000 won with 25 percent per annum from the day following the day when he is served with the copy of the instant gusheing.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs are assessed against all of the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2-1 (each comprehensive automobile insurance subscription form), Eul evidence No. 1-2 (each comprehensive automobile insurance policy), Eul evidence No. 1-1-2, Gap evidence No. 3-1-2 (written agreement) which can be recognized as authentic by testimony of the court below's witness's testimony, and the whole purport of the testimony and arguments of the court below and the court below's ruling No. 1076 of Apr. 27, 1986, the plaintiff entered the above general automobile insurance contract into with the defendant for the above 1-20-year automobile insurance money, and the defendant paid the above insurance money to the defendant for the above 0-year automobile No. 1-20 of the above general automobile insurance money for the above 0-year automobile accident. According to the above facts, the plaintiff's insurance money No. 20-year automobile insurance money for the above 0-year automobile accident, and the defendant paid damages to the defendant for the above 20-year automobile accident within the above period.

In light of the above general terms and conditions of automobile insurance, the defendant, when entering into an insurance contract, notifies the insurer of the type or structure of the automobile as well as the purpose of its use, and if it is not so notified, the insurer does not compensate for the damage caused by the insurance accident. Despite the fact that the accident in this case was used for the daily transportation of unspecified persons, the defendant merely notified the defendant of the use of the bus in this case without notifying the defendant at the time of entering into the insurance contract, so the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim of the insurance money in this case. Thus, the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim of the insurance money in this case. Thus, in full view of the whole purport of the statement and arguments of evidence No. 4,5 (Permit for Onerous Transport) No. 7 without dispute over the establishment and the purport of the oral argument of the court below, the plaintiff cannot be acknowledged as having been operating the bus in this case for convenience of the non-party 1, 1986, with the permission of the non-party 1, the non-party 2, and the defendant's testimony of this case.

In other words, according to the above general terms and conditions of the bus insurance, the defendant did not compensate the plaintiff for losses arising from the accident of the above 4-year bus's use of the above 4-year bus insurance units. However, the plaintiff was established for profit-making purposes under the comprehensive bus insurance terms and conditions of the above 4-year bus, and the defendant did not pay additional insurance premiums pursuant to the above special terms and conditions even though the plaintiff was operated for profit-making purposes. Thus, it is hard to find that the plaintiff could not accept the claim of the insurance proceeds of the above 7-year bus units for profit-making purposes as stated above, because it was not against the above 1-year bus operation insurance units of the above 4-year bus office's 7-year bus operation insurance units, and it is hard to acknowledge that the plaintiff was operated for profit-making purposes of the above 4-year bus operation insurance units of the above 1-year bus office's 7-year bus operation insurance units of the above 7-year bus units. The plaintiff's testimony of the above 4-year bus operation insurance units.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above 14,300,000 won and damages for delay at the rate of 25 percent per annum from March 28, 1987 to the date of receiving a copy of the complaint of this case as the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and the plaintiff's claim of this case can be accepted with this conclusion. Since the original judgment is just, the defendant's appeal is dismissed without grounds, and the costs of appeal shall be borne to the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)