[1] Where an insurer concludes an insurance contract in violation of the duty to specify and explain the terms of the insurance contract, whether the insurer can assert the contents of the insurance contract as the content of the insurance contract (negative)

[2] The case holding that the "damage caused by an accident caused by an accident in the course of driving an automobile, such as automobile maintenance business, parking lot business, oil supply business, automobile sales business, etc.," which is a non-compensation loss among the special terms and conditions of the other automobile driving security contract, is an important part of the insurance contract, and thus is subject to the duty to explain

[1] Under Article 638-3 (1) of the Commercial Act and Article 3 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act, an insurer and a person engaged in the conclusion or solicitation of an insurance contract are obligated to specify and explain the important contents of the insurance contract, such as the content of the insurance contract, the system of insurance premium rates, changes in the terms and conditions of the insurance application, and reasons for exemption of the insurer's liability, etc., in concluding the insurance contract. Thus, if the insurer concludes the insurance contract in violation of such duty to specify and explain the terms and conditions, it cannot be asserted as the content of the insurance contract.

[2] The case holding that the "damage caused by an accident caused by an accident in the course of driving an automobile, such as automobile maintenance business, parking lot business, oil supply business, automobile sales business, etc., which is a non-compensation loss among the special terms and conditions of the other automobile driving security contract, shall be subject to the duty of explanation as it is an important part of the insurance contract.

[1] Article 638-3 (1) of the Commercial Act, Article 3 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act / [2] Article 638-3 (1) of the Commercial Act, Article 3 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Da32564 delivered on November 27, 1998 (Gong1999Sang, 41) Supreme Court Decision 98Da43342, 43359 delivered on March 9, 199 (Gong199Sang, 634 delivered on May 30, 200) Supreme Court Decision 99Da66236 delivered on May 30, 200 (Gong200Ha, 1526)

Shindong Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Jeong Young-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant-Counterclaim (Attorney Kim Young-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff-appellant)

Daejeon High Court Decision 99Na6867, 6874 delivered on February 1, 2001

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

1. The court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant, a motor vehicle dealer, purchased the motor vehicle of this case as indicated in the judgment of the non-party with the purpose of selling it, and received the vehicle of this case along with the documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership (the defendant did not complete the registration of transfer in the name of the defendant), and judged that the motor vehicle of this case does not constitute the "motor vehicle for personal use as stipulated in the "Special Clause for other Motor Vehicle Driving Security" and its parent, spouse, or child". The above decision of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the concept or scope of the motor vehicle owned or used ordinarily by the non-party as stipulated in the above terms and conditions, and the Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal (No. 1

2. Under Article 638-3(1) of the Commercial Act and Article 3 of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions, an insurer and a person engaged in the conclusion or solicitation of an insurance contract are obligated to specify and explain the important contents of the insurance contract, such as the content of the insurance contract, the system of insurance premium rates, changes in the terms and conditions of the insurance application, and reasons for exemption of the insurer's liability, in concluding the insurance contract. Thus, if the insurer concludes the insurance contract in violation of the duty to specify and explain such terms and conditions, the insurer may not claim the contents of the contract as the content of the insurance contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da66236, May 30, 200).

According to the "other special terms and conditions of automobile driving security" applicable to the insurance contract of this case, the court below recognized the fact that in case where the defendant, who has subscribed to the insurance contract of this case, has suffered damage due to the personal accident or physical accident that occurred while driving another motor vehicle, the plaintiff shall be deemed to be an insured motor vehicle under the general terms and conditions of the defendant's driving and shall compensate as prescribed in the liability for damages under the general terms and conditions. On the other hand, one of the damages not to compensate under the above special terms and conditions is "the insured" as one of the damages caused by an accident in the course of driving the motor vehicle, such as automobile maintenance business, parking lot business, oil supply business, rent business, automobile sales business, etc. (hereinafter "the exemption clause of this case"), and judged that the exemption clause of this case is related to the important terms and conditions of the insurance contract of this case and thus becomes subject to the duty of explanation. In light of the judgment of the court below, it is justified and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the subject of the duty to explain (2).

3. 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.

Justices Lee Ji-dam (Presiding Justice)