[1] The meaning of "the case where the insured is stolen" under the age limit special terms and conditions of the comprehensive automobile insurance contract, and the standard for determining whether the insured's ‘explied approval' exists for the stolen driving of the automobile

[2] The case holding that, in case where a motor vehicle seller transfers to a buyer all the rights of vehicle management, operation method, driver's employment, etc. while transferring a motor vehicle, a registered motor vehicle seller, who is an insured person, has impliedly approved the driver's act under 26 years of age employed by the deceased buyer

[1] Article 726-2 of the Commercial Act, Article 105 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 726-2 of the Commercial Act, Article 105 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Da50431 delivered on February 23, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1070), Supreme Court Decision 98Da1072 delivered on July 10, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2075), Supreme Court Decision 99Da40548 delivered on February 25, 200 (Gong2000Sang, 821)

Red Jeju District Court Decision 201Na1448 delivered on August 2, 201

Shindong Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Jung-dae et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Daegu High Court Decision 2000Na8114 delivered on September 21, 2001

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

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

The term "the case where the insured is stolen" under the special terms and conditions of limited driving insurance for 26 years or older refers to the case where a third party drives an insured motor vehicle without explicit or implied intent of the insured, and the term "explied intention" here leads to the application of the above special terms and conditions in the same manner as the insured clearly expresses his intention, it should be limited to the case where there are circumstances to see his intention to approve it to the extent that it can be the same as the case where the insured's intention to approve it is explicitly expressed, but the existence of implied intention should be recognized in addition to the relation between the insured and the driver below the age, the situation and purpose of operation of the vehicle, the situation of enabling the operation of the vehicle below the age concerned, the attitude of the insured against the driver below the age concerned, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da40548, Feb. 25, 200).

In full view of the adopted evidence, the court below found that the accident of this case occurred while the plaintiff purchased the vehicle of this case from this creative interference and received the vehicle of this case while driving the vehicle of this case as a driver without the age of 26, and that the seller of this case transferred all the authority concerning vehicle management, operation method, employment and payment of wages, etc. while transferring the vehicle of this case to the plaintiff while transferring the vehicle of this case to the plaintiff. After the plaintiff delivered the vehicle of this case to the plaintiff, the plaintiff did not have any interest in how he would directly drive the vehicle of this case or employ any person as a driver, and then, based on the facts found, the Lee Chang-con who is the registered insured of the present vehicle of this case as the approved driver of the vehicle of this case did not have any intention to approve the act of driving the vehicle of this case, but it is reasonable to view that the accident of this case was an impliedly approved to the extent that it can be seen as being identical to the case of the driver of the vehicle of this case, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or the record.

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

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)