The effect of the insurance terms and conditions that if the policyholder or the insured fails to notify the change of his/her address, the previous address shall be deemed the place of receiving the declaration of intention.

Article 12 subparag. 3 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act provides that a clause which provides that an insurance company’s expression of intent which seriously affects the interest of a customer shall be deemed null and void, without a considerable reason, shall be deemed to have reached a customer without the declaration of intention of the insurance company. The latter part of Article 3(3) of the Special Terms and Conditions for Payment of Insurance Premiums under the Special Terms and Conditions for Individual Automobile Insurance which provides that unless a policyholder or an insured person notifies a policyholder or an insured person of the change of address pursuant to the General Terms and Conditions for Individual Automobile Insurance, the insurance company shall be the designated place in which the policyholder or the insured person is to receive the declaration of intention of the insurance company. In light of the latter part of the Special Terms and Conditions for Payment of Insurance Premiums under the Special Terms and Conditions for Individual Automobile Insurance Act, even though the insurance company was negligent in failing to inform the policyholder or the insured of the change of address of the previous insurance company, unless the policyholder or the insured was negligent in failing to notify the change of address of the insurance company, the special terms and conditions shall be interpreted to be null and void only as they have reached a customer without considerable reason.

Articles 650(2) and 663 of the Commercial Act, Article 9 subparag. 2 and Article 12 subparag. 3 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Meu23899 Decided December 24, 1991 (Gong1992, 652)

Plaintiff (Attorney Choi Ho-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Sang-ok, Attorneys Sun-tae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 99Na3930 delivered on June 2, 1999

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The facts acknowledged by the court below as to the insurance contract of this case are as follows. In other words, the plaintiff entered into an individual automobile comprehensive insurance contract (vehicle registration number omitted) as shown in its judgment with the defendant on July 30, 1997 with respect to the automobile owned by the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the "insurance contract of this case") as to the total insurance premium amounting to 492,960 won on the first installment of 669,850 won, and the remaining 176,890 won on the date of the contract. The defendant did not pay the insurance premium of this case to the defendant at the 20th day of December 30, 1997 without notifying the defendant of the change in the 19th day of the first installment of the insurance premium of this case by 30th day after the date of payment under the provisions of the special terms and conditions for the insurance contract of this case.

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the insurance contract of this case was terminated from December 30, 1997 to January 24, 298 on the date of the second installment payment, since the defendant notified the plaintiff to pay the insurance money in installments to the plaintiff as stated in the insurance policy pursuant to Article 650 (2) of the Commercial Act, on the premise of the above factual basis, the contract of this case was terminated at around 30 days after December 30, 1997, which was the date of the second installment payment. In order to terminate the insurance contract of this case on the ground of the delay in payment of the plaintiff's insurance premium in installments, the defendant must set a reasonable period pursuant to Article 650 (2) of the Commercial Act and notify the plaintiff, and the notice must reach the plaintiff. The defendant's highest dispatch of the defendant's written notice that was not premised on actual receipt of the plaintiff's insurance contract is formally omitted, and thus, if the defendant sent the notice to the plaintiff's previous address, the above provision of the terms and conditions can be terminated even if the plaintiff did not actually receive it.

2. Article 12 subparag. 3 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act provides that a clause that regards an enterpriser’s expression of intent which seriously affects the interest of the customer as having reached the customer without good cause shall be null and void. The latter part of Article 3(3) of the above Special Terms and Conditions shall be construed as null and void, in light of the language and text of the above Special Terms and Conditions, even though the defendant knew of the change of the policyholder or the insured’s address, etc. or location such as the changed address if he or he or she knew of such change if he or she had been negligent in failing to notify the policyholder or the insured of the change of his or her address, if it is interpreted that the termination of the insurance contract or the payment demand notice of the premium may be given by making the previous address recorded in the insurance policy the designated place where the policyholder or the insured would receive his or her declaration of intention without any substantial reason. Therefore, the above provision shall be construed as null and void pursuant to the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act, except for the cases where it is void.

However, according to the records, the plaintiff made a move-in report for resident registration (Evidence A8) on November 18, 1997, and on December 1, 1997, the plaintiff made a move-in report for resident registration (Evidence A10) on the plaintiff's vehicle register for the vehicle of this case. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant did not know the plaintiff's changed address because he knew that the address of the plaintiff was changed or did not confirm each entry. Thus, the defendant did not know the changed address of the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant did not cancel the payment peremptory notice for installment premiums or the insurance contract to the plaintiff's previous address pursuant to the provisions of the above contract.

Although the reasoning of the lower judgment is somewhat inappropriate, the lower court’s conclusion that the Defendant’s highest notice of this case did not reach the Plaintiff is justifiable, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the nature of insurance contracts as a two-cost mutual agreement, and the principle of equity among policyholders. The allegation in the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

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 by all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)