[1] Binding force of the insurance terms

[2] The case holding that the calculation of the insurance money based on the injury clause of the non-life insurance among the non-life insurance policy for a household car shall be limited to the amount based on the payment criteria of the insurance money stipulated in the ordinary terms and conditions [Attachment 1] instead of the insured

[1] When an insurance contract is concluded between the parties on the basis of the insurance clause, the insurance clause shall be included in the contents of the contract, and it shall be binding upon the parties, unless there are special circumstances.

[2] The case holding that the insurance money paid by an insurance company shall be the amount calculated by adding the necessary expenses to the insurance payment basis of the general terms and conditions [Attachment 1] and the ordinary terms and conditions shall be the amount calculated by deducting the prescribed amount from the insurance payment basis of the insurance money, and the insurance money to be paid by an insurance company shall be the amount calculated by calculating the insurance money of the insurance money of the insurance money of the insurance money of the insurance money of the insurance money of the insurance money of the non-life compensation (including damages for delay) by the final judgment of the court of the Republic of Korea. In case where a lawsuit is filed, the insurance money of the insurance money shall be calculated based on the insurance payment basis of the insurance money of the insurance money of the insured in accordance with the payment basis of the insurance money of the insurance money of the non-life compensation (including damages for delay) where the payment basis of the insurance money is set by dividing the insurance money into liability insurance, personal compensation, physical compensation, etc. under [Attachment 1].

[1] Articles 638 and 638-3 of the Commercial Act / [2] Articles 638 and 638-3 of the Commercial Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 84Da2543 delivered on November 26, 1985 (Gong1986, 108), Supreme Court Decision 88Da29177 delivered on November 14, 1989 (Gong1990, 29), Supreme Court Decision 91Da20432 delivered on September 10, 199 (Gong191, 2527)

Plaintiff 1 and 3 others (Attorney Soh Byung-il, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

El Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Han Han-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Daegu High Court Decision 95Na5746 delivered on March 29, 1996

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The grounds of appeal and the supplemental appellate brief submitted after the lapse of the period are also considered to supplement the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below confirmed that the non-party 1 entered into a comprehensive insurance contract for private cars with the defendant, and also subscribed to the non-life liability insurance for household automobile (hereinafter referred to as the "non-life liability insurance") containing the injury clause by the non-life liability (hereinafter referred to as the "life liability clause for non-life liability insurance"), and confirmed that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 died due to the accident caused by the accident caused by the non-life liability insurance, and the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 4 suffered from the injury. The defendant's assertion that the insurance company is liable to pay only the amount according to the payment standard of the insurance amount stipulated in the general terms and conditions, unlike the case of the non-life liability clause for the non-life liability insurance, the insurance company is obligated to pay the insured the amount of the insurance amount to be borne by the person liable for damage in lieu of the person liable for damage with no ability to compensate. Thus, the payment standard for insurance money stipulated in the insurance policy is not a provisional standard for calculating the amount of damages for each person.

2. However, unless there are special circumstances, where an insurance contract has been concluded between the parties based on the insurance clauses, the insurance clauses shall be included in the insurance clauses, which have been agreed to be binding on the parties to the contract (see Supreme Court Decisions 84Meu2543, Nov. 26, 1985; 88Meu2917, Nov. 14, 1989). Examining the non-life insurance clause in the Monk Policy which was applied at the time of the instant case, the indemnity limit shall be limited to the amount of personal indemnity insurance, but if the amount of personal indemnity insurance coverage is nonexistent, it shall be limited to KRW 100,000 per person of the insured (Article 6(1)); the insurance money paid by the defendant shall be limited to the amount calculated based on the "amount calculated by the large liability insurance clauses" [Attachment 1] and the amount calculated based on the "amount calculated by the large liability insurance clauses" (Article 6(2)). Meanwhile, the payment criteria for damages shall be included in the insurer's general liability insurance clauses.

In light of the above provisions, the defendant, an insurance company, pursuant to the non-insurance accident clause, shall not take over risks based on the actual amount of damages of the insured who is legally liable for damages, but shall be deemed limited to the amount according to the insurance payment criteria stipulated in the ordinary contract [Attachment 1]. In this case, there is no reason to believe that the binding force of the above standardized contract is excluded.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the scope of damages guaranteed by the accident accident clause of a package insurance policy is erroneous or erroneous as to the payment standards of the remaining insurance money, which belongs to the above scope of damages. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the interpretation or validity of the insurance contract, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the ground for appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)