KNF Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm, Kim & Lee LLC, Attorneys Ro-young et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Barun, Attorneys Gangwon-won et al.)

Mo Automobile Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Mad Co., Ltd., Attorneys Jeong Jae-ro et al., Counsel for

April 19, 2012

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Kahap96125 Decided January 26, 201

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

A. Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. shall pay to the Plaintiff 1,244,828,00 won with 5% interest per annum from September 4, 2009 to June 21, 2012, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. The plaintiff's remaining main claim against the defendant Hyundai Motor Co., Ltd. and each claim against the defendant Hyundai Motor Co., Ltd. are dismissed.

2. Of the total costs of litigation, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Hyundai Motor Co.

3. The above paragraph 1(a) may be provisionally executed.

1. Purport of claim

In the first place, Defendant Hyundai Motor Co., Ltd. shall pay to the Plaintiff 1,224,828,000 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment. Preliminary (in the case of Defendant Hyundai Motor Co., Ltd, the claim for return of unjust enrichment and the claim for damages based on tort are selected). The Defendants shall pay to each Plaintiff 1,224,828,00 won with 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff's purport of appeal

The main part of the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,224,828,00 with 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

Preliminaryly, the part of the conjunctive claim for the first instance judgment against the Plaintiff, which falls under the following subparagraphs, shall be revoked. The Defendants shall pay to each Plaintiff 367,448,400 won with 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of the copy of the instant complaint to the day of complete payment.

B. Purport of appeal by the defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Corporation

In the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Corporation shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part shall be dismissed.

C. Purport of appeal by Defendant Hyundai Automobile Corporation

In the judgment of the first instance, the part against Defendant Hyundai Motor Company shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part shall be dismissed.

1. Basic facts

The reasoning for this part of the court's explanation is the same as that for the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the main claim against the defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance

A. Party’s assertion and the key issue of this case

(1) The parties' assertion

As to the Plaintiff’s claim for insurance money on the premise that the insured event stipulated in each of the instant guarantee insurance contracts occurred, the Seoul Guarantee Insurance asserts as follows. ① Each of the instant guarantee insurance contracts aims to guarantee the performance of the obligation to pay installments on “14.5 tons of freezing wing.” However, the instant insurance contract is null and void since the Plaintiff’s purchase of KS and YM from Defendant Hyundai Motor is “new Truck,” and there is no prime contract stipulated in each of the instant insurance contracts. Furthermore, even if the instant insurance contract does not fulfill the obligation to pay the installment payment on the new wave truck, this does not constitute an insurance accident stipulated in each of the instant guarantee insurance contracts, and thus, the said Defendant did not have the obligation to pay the insurance money to the Plaintiff. ② Article 10(1) of the instant guarantee insurance contract provides that each of the instant guarantee insurance contracts, which is the insured, constitutes a violation of the instant guarantee insurance contract, with the aim of providing that the Defendant’s insurance contract would become null and void at least KRW 10,000,000,00 for Hyundai Motor Motor Cargo Co.

The Plaintiff asserts as follows regarding the claim ① above of the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff asserts that each of the instant guarantee insurance contracts is not a installment sales contract, but a monetary loan contract ( installment financing contract). At the time of each of the instant guarantee insurance contracts, each of the instant guarantee insurance contracts existed as a principal contract, and as the occurrence of an insured event for which the principal contract has not been performed, the Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. is liable to pay insurance money. Furthermore, as to the allegation as follows: (ii) in the case of a guarantee insurance contract which adds special terms and conditions for installment sales with respect to the loans of financial institutions, such as each of the instant guarantee insurance contracts, the Defendant Hyundai Motor Co., Ltd. deviates from the insurance contract, and only the Plaintiff, a financial institution, as the insured, has the right to claim insurance money as the insured, and thus, the respective guarantee insurance contract cannot be deemed null and void only by the Plaintiff’s deception of the Defendant Hyundai Motor Co., Ltd., which is contrary to the provisions of Article 6(1), Article 7 subparag. 2 and 3 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act.

(2) The issues of the instant case

Therefore, the issue of this case is whether the main contract of each of the guaranteed insurance contracts of this case exists, and, if deemed to exist, what is the main contract of each of the above contracts, who is to be deemed the insured, and if viewed as above, who is the insured, whether each of the guaranteed insurance contracts of this case can be deemed null and void or the defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance is exempted from the duty

B. The principal contract of each guarantee insurance contract of this case and the insured

(1) State contract, the meaning of the insured

Guarantee insurance is a kind of non-life insurance, the content of which is to take over by the insurer the compensation of the loss suffered by the obligee due to the obligor's default. In such a guarantee insurance, the basic legal relationship that generally causes the non-performance of the risk insured by the guaranteed insurance, namely, the principal contract that generates the obligation to the obligee of the policyholder, and the subject of the insured interest protected by such guarantee insurance, namely, the person who has the claim based on the principal contract and will be damaged by the policyholder's non-performance of the obligation.

(2) recognised facts

(A) The Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance was authorized by the Financial Supervisory Service to handle installment financing services, but it did not obtain authorization to handle installment financing services, and entered into an installment financing contract only with respect to installment sales by the automobile sales company itself and the installment sales by the consumer financing method. In addition, since January 1, 1996, it is anticipated that installment financing companies newly established by the government's permission to newly establish installment financing companies will engage in the method of installment financing business directly by financial institutions unlike the existing customer financing method. As such, the Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance determined that the companies would suffer a considerable degree if they are not using the installment financing business, and that the Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance enacted the special terms and conditions of installment financing for the purpose of continuously securing financial companies engaged in the business of operating installment financing companies or installment financing as customers, and implemented it from January 3, 206.

(B) On Jan. 2, 2008, the Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance against the question of Dtifa Co., Ltd. regarding the guarantee insurance contract for installment financing as part of the installment financing special terms and conditions. The Defendant Hyundai Motor is not entitled to claim and receive insurance money, and the Defendant Hyundai Motor is entitled to claim and receive insurance money, and the installment financing company is allowed to confirm only the purchase price of the automobile sales contract between the installment buyer and the vehicle seller. In addition, the Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance’s internal business guidelines provide that “the scope of risks to be borne by the policyholder is not the principal contract (or the monetary loan contract) but the damage suffered by the insured or the financial institution, the obligee, or the financial institution, by failing to perform its obligations as stipulated in the principal contract (or the monetary loan contract)” and states it as a substitution between the insured and the financial institution.

(C) On September 13, 2007, the president of the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Headquarters notified the heads of its branch offices of the cases of concluding an insurance contract for installment financing special terms and conditions at another branch office, and thus, he/she can sell it even when he/she uses a financial company other than an affiliated financial company of an automobile selling company. Thus, in the agency or financial company decision of an automobile selling company whose degree of direct contact with the life insurance company's lending team or the degree of affiliated financial company's subordinate to the affiliated financial company is much superior to the automobile selling company's agency or financial company's decision, the head of the Korea Guarantee Insurance headquarters issued an instruction on the method of business to make efforts to sell the insurance policy by printing the

(D) In the process of concluding a guarantee insurance contract similar to each of the instant guarantee insurance contracts, the employee of Hyundai Motor was paid the vehicle price, and thus refusing to affix the official seal on the ground that there is no reason to become the insured of the guaranteed insurance contract, and the employee of the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd is unable to issue the guaranteed insurance policy to the financial company as the insured, and even if an insured event occurs, there is an additional entry that the Defendant Hyundai Motor will not claim the return

(E) Of the subscription forms for each of the instant guarantee insurance contracts and the subscription forms for each of the instant insurance policies, the installment sales amount is the value after the completion of the contract up to the privileges, and there is a difference between KS and the package distribution amount concluded with the Defendant Hyundai Motor. If the installment sales amount is excluded from the installment sales amount, it is consistent with the amount of each of the instant loan contracts, and the installment period, installment amount, and date of payment, etc. stated in that portion are consistent with the contents of each of the instant loan contracts.

(F) The insurance period based on each guarantee insurance contract of this case is from the day following the date of the execution of each of the loans of this case until the maturity date of the loan of this case. The amount equivalent to the truck payment liability of the above company against the defendant Hyundai Motor among the loans of this case was remitted to the above defendant at the time of the execution of each of the loans of this case upon the delegation of KS and Mem Distribution. Therefore, the defendant Hyundai Motor did not have any part of the sales payment claim against the above company during the insurance period under each of the guarantee

(G) The Nonparty, the employee of the Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. who dealt with each of the instant guarantee insurance contracts, was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff would immediately recover the vehicle price held by the Defendant Hyundai Motor with respect to the case distribution and distribution when the Plaintiff performed a loan under each of the instant loan contracts by taking the respective insurance policies of this case as security.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 3, 6, 11, 12, 13-2, 2, 15-2, Eul evidence 2, 7, 9, Eul evidence 3, 7, and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

(3) Main contract of the instant guaranteed insurance contract and confirmation of the insured

(A) Under the terms and conditions of each of the instant insurance policies, the term “principal contract” refers to the installment sales contract concluded by the policyholder (Article 1 of the General Terms and Conditions, Article 2 of the General Terms and Conditions of Installment Financing), and the fact that each of the instant guarantee insurance contracts and the insured column of each of the instant insurance policies are indicated as the insured by the Defendant Hyundai Motor in the column for the insured of each of the instant insurance policies is recognized as above. Once following the foregoing mentioned above, the principal contract of each of the instant guarantee insurance contracts is an automobile sales contract between KS and the Defendant Hyundai Motor, and the insured is the Defendant Hyundai Motor.

(B) However, the interpretation of a juristic act is clearly confirming the objective meaning that the parties have granted to the act of indicating the contract, and where there is a conflict of opinion regarding the interpretation of the contract between the parties, and the interpretation of the parties’ intent expressed in the contract document is at issue, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the text, the motive and background leading up to the agreement, the purpose to be achieved by the agreement, the parties’ genuine intent, etc. Therefore, it shall not be linked to the entries in each insurance policy of this case, but shall be reasonably interpreted to determine the principal contract and the insured by reasonably interpreting the risks

(C) The following circumstances are as follows: (a) the Seoul Guarantee Fund established a special terms and conditions of installment financing for the purpose of concluding a guarantee insurance contract; (b) the Defendant’s failure to perform installment financing obligations in the case of installment financing installment savings, and otherwise deemed as default of installment financing obligations in the case of installment financing special terms and conditions; and (c) the question about the company’s failure to perform installment financing obligations is not an automobile sales contract, but an insured loan contract with the company of installment financing. In the case of installment financing special terms and conditions of installment financing, the Defendant’s director of the Seoul Guarantee Fund is not a party to an automobile sales contract, but also recommended a financial institution that is not an automobile selling company or an actual buyer to perform its business activities through the said insurance contract; and (d) the Defendant’s director of the Seoul Guarantee Fund also did not know that each of the terms and conditions of the Plaintiff’s insurance contracts had already been concluded with each of the Defendant’s indemnity insurance contracts at the time of the commencement of the guarantee insurance contract as stated in the Seoul Guarantee Fund’s execution of each of the insurance contracts.

Nevertheless, the fact that each of the instant insurance policies states a installment sales contract as a principal contract, and an automobile sales company as the insured is the fact that Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Company’s failure to obtain authorization from the Financial Supervisory Service for handling installment financing, and concluding a guarantee insurance contract is beyond the scope of authorization for handling it. Considering such circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the main contract and the insured’s entries in each of the instant guarantee insurance contracts as the intent to apply the installment financing contract for the purpose of using the goods purchase fund, which is not mediating the purchase of goods, are not subject to guarantee in pure loan contracts.

(D) Therefore, even in a case where the principal contract of each of the instant guaranteed insurance contracts and the insured are viewed as such, it is examined as to whether each of the instant guaranteed insurance contracts becomes null and void or the above defendant is exempted from the obligation to pay the insurance proceeds, as alleged in the Seoul Guarantee Insurance.

C. Determination as to the absence of a principal contract or the non-existence of an insurance accident

(1) Determination as to the assertion that no State contract exists and invalidation is invalidated

As seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that each guarantee insurance contract of this case is the actual principal contract of this case, and that it is each of the loan contracts of this case concluded by the Plaintiff and the case Es. Es. and Ms. and Ms., and each of the guarantee insurance contracts of this case is reflected in all of the contents of each of the loan contracts of this case, and thus, it

However, this part of the assertion is not a substantial main contract, but if the automobile sales contract between the defendant Hyundai Motor and KS and Mediaries, which are indicated as the main contract in each of the insurance policies in this case, is different from the grasping of the defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., each of the guarantee insurance contracts in this case may be deemed null and void. However, if each of the insurance policies in this case does not have a main contract, the content that each of the guarantee insurance contracts in this case becomes null and void is not stipulated in the terms and conditions of each of the insurance contracts in this case, and there is no ground to conclude that each of the guarantee insurance contracts in this case becomes null and void due to the above reasons. The fact that each of the guarantee insurance contracts in this case is null and void on the basis of the nature of the guarantee insurance in this case, on the premise of the existence of the main legal relationship to guarantee in the light of the nature of the guarantee insurance, and there is no main legal relationship, and thus there is no legal principle that the insurance contract in this case becomes null and void (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da1623, Apr. 15, 2010).

Therefore, this part of the defendant's Seoul Guarantee Insurance is without merit.

(2) Determination as to the assertion that an insurance accident had not occurred

The actual principal contract of each guarantee insurance contract of this case was seen as seen earlier, and each of the loan contracts of this case entered into between KS and YN and the Plaintiff. However, insofar as KSN and YNN did not perform installment financing obligations under each of the loan contracts of this case, it is determined that the insured events under each of the guarantee insurance contracts of this case occurred (the non-performance of the above company's obligation to pay new truck to Defendant Hyundai Motor, which claimed that Seoul Guarantee Insurance was an insurance accident scheduled under each of the insurance contracts of this case, is different from that stipulated under each of the respective guaranteed insurance contracts of this case, and it cannot be deemed as an insurance accident of each of the guaranteed insurance contracts of this case).

Therefore, this part of the defendant's Seoul Guarantee Insurance is without merit.

D. Determination on the assertion of invalidation due to the fraud of Defendant Hyundai Motor Vehicle

(1) The part concerning fraud on special expenses and advance payment

As seen earlier, it is reasonable to deem that the actual insured of each of the respective guaranteed insurance contracts of this case is the Plaintiff, and thus, the above fraud of Defendant Hyundai Motor is not a fraudulent act of the insured.

However, the intention of entering the Defendant Hyundai Motor as the insured in each of the instant insurance policies is, even if there is a fraudulent act by the above Defendant, not the actual insured, it is reasonable to view that each of the instant guarantees insurance contracts would be null and void in accordance with Article 3(1) of the Special Terms and Conditions for Installment Financing and Article 10(1) of the General Terms and Conditions.

The above facts are acknowledged. However, each guarantee insurance contract of this case is concluded between the policyholder and the defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. with the plaintiff as the actual insured. The defendant Hyundai Motor is not a party having an influence on the validity of each guarantee insurance contract of this case. The plaintiff is not a party to the contract in relation to the act of the defendant Hyundai Motor, not a party to the contract. The above defendant did not impose an obligation to grasp the authenticity of the sales contract of the defendant Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. in the response to the defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. as to the questioning about the authenticity of the contract of this case. If the policyholder of the Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. knew or could have known the fraudulent act of the insured, or if the insured had an obligation to examine the contract, it can be asserted against the insured on the ground of cancellation only in exceptional cases where the insured knew or could have known the fraudulent act, or where the insured had an obligation to examine the contract, and it does not conform to the purport that each of the above guarantee insurance contract of this case becomes null and void by the contract of this case.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's Seoul Guarantee Insurance's argument is without merit.

(2) The portion below the advance payment under the instant comprehensive agreement

In the instant comprehensive agreement, Defendant Hyundai Motor is required to receive 15% or more of the cash sales price in advance, and if violating this, it shall be deemed to have committed fraud as stipulated in Article 10(1) of the ordinary terms and conditions. However, as the instant comprehensive agreement was concluded between the Defendants, it is recognized as above. However, in order to apply the content of the instant comprehensive agreement to any contract, at least the contract to be concluded later is a party to the instant comprehensive agreement, or its contracting parties agree to include the contents in the instant comprehensive agreement in the contract. However, as seen earlier, each of the instant comprehensive agreement was concluded between the policyholder and the Defendant Seoul Guarantee Co., Ltd. as the actual insured, and the Defendant Hyundai Motor is not a party to each of the instant respective guarantee insurance contracts, nor is it in a position to receive any benefit therefrom. Moreover, there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff, a party to each of the instant respective guarantee insurance contracts and the Plaintiff, the actual insured, consented to the content of each of the instant comprehensive agreement as the content of each of the instant comprehensive insurance contracts.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's Seoul Guarantee Insurance's assertion is without merit under the premise that the comprehensive agreement of this case is applicable to each guarantee insurance contract of this case.

E. Determination as to the assertion that the obligation to pay insurance money is exempted due to the reason attributable to Defendant Hyundai Motor Vehicle

According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 3, it can be acknowledged that each insurance policy of this case provides that the damage incurred by the insured or a financial institution’s responsible cause shall not be compensated (Article 2(2) of the General Terms and Conditions and Article 3(1) of the Special Terms and Conditions for Installment Financing). However, as seen earlier, Defendant Hyundai Motor is not the actual insured, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there is a substantial responsible cause for the insured in this

However, this part of the terms and conditions of the contract is not the actual insured but the insured, if there is a reason to be responsible for the defendant Hyundai Motor. Therefore, this part of the terms and conditions of the contract is examined as follows.

The following facts are acknowledged: (a) the employee of the Defendant Hyundai Motor Vehicle provided a sales contract stating false details in relation to special funeral expenses and advance payment. However, the Commercial Act provides that the insurer is exempted from the liability to pay insurance if an insured incident occurs due to the intention or gross negligence of the policyholder, the insured, or the beneficiary (Article 659). (b) The Commercial Act provides that no special agreement between the parties disadvantageous to the insured is effective (Article 663). Therefore, in this case, if it is interpreted that the Defendant Hyundai Motor is exempted from the liability to pay insurance money under each guarantee insurance contract of this case due to the reason attributable to the Defendant Hyundai Motor, the insurer is exempted from the liability solely for the reason attributable to the policyholder, the third party who is not belonging to the insured, or the beneficiary, and this is null and void by Article 663 of the Commercial Act, which is more unfavorable to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's Seoul Guarantee Insurance is not justified.

F. Sub-committee

Each guarantee insurance contract of this case is aimed at compensating financial institutions for losses sustained by failure to perform the installment financing obligations as stipulated in the monetary loan agreement concluded by the financial institution and the policyholder, and the fact that the case Es distribution and the transcript distribution have lost the benefit of time due to the delay in payment of the principal and interest of each loan agreement of this case is recognized as above.

Therefore, from September 4, 2009, the day following the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case for the amount of insurance proceeds of each guarantee insurance contract of this case, which does not exceed the amount of damages suffered by the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s claim as to the existence and scope of the obligation of performance is significant (if the obligor’s claim is accepted in the first instance trial because it contests the existence and scope of the obligation of performance, the assertion can be deemed to have a reasonable ground even if it is rejected in the appellate trial. In such a case, the interest rate for delay damages as stipulated in Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings cannot be applied until the appellate trial is sentenced in accordance with Article 3(2) of the same Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da21696, Jul. 8, 2010).

3. Determination as to the conjunctive claim against Defendant Hyundai Motor Vehicle

A subjective and preliminary co-litigation is a form of litigation in which all co-litigants settle the dispute between themselves in the same legal relationship without contradiction in a single litigation procedure (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da36308, Apr. 10, 2008).

In the event that each guarantee insurance contract of this case becomes null and void, the defendant Hyundai Motor is obligated to pay the amount equivalent to the above amount of the insurance due to unjust enrichment return or tort damages, since it obtained profits equivalent to the amount of the insurance amount without any legal cause, suffered damages equivalent to the plaintiff, or caused losses not paid to the plaintiff by fraudulent act. However, as long as it accepted the plaintiff's primary claim against the defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance, since it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to the insurance amount, the selective claim against the above defendant on this premise is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's main claim against the defendant Hyundai Motor is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder of the main claim and the conjunctive claim against the defendant Hyundai Motor are dismissed as it is without merit. However, since the part concerning the main claim in the judgment of the court of first instance and the part concerning the conjunctive claim against the defendant Hyundai Motor are unfair in some different conclusions, the plaintiff's main appeal and the appeal against the defendant Hyundai Motor are accepted, and the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as above. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Choi Full-ju (Presiding Judge)