(a) Scope of application of the exemption clause for unauthorized Driving;

B. Criteria for determining whether a policyholder or the insured has granted implied approval for driving without a license

(c) The case holding that there was no implied approval of the corporation's employee's non-licensed driving; and

A. Article 10, Paragraph 1, Item 6 of the Motor Vehicle Comprehensive Insurance Clause applies only when a unauthorized driving has been conducted in a situation where it is possible to control or manage the policyholder or the insured, and here, the term "in a situation where a unauthorized driving has been conducted in which the policyholder or the insured can control or manage" means a case where the policyholder or the insured has obtained the express or implied approval.

B. Whether a non-licensed driving was conducted with the implied approval of the policyholder or the insured ought to be determined by the circumstances, such as the relationship between the policyholder or the insured and the non-licensed driver, the status and management status of ordinary vehicles, the circumstances and purpose of enabling the pertinent non-licensed driving, and the attitude of the policyholder or the insured with respect to the driving of ordinary vehicles.

(c) The case holding that there was no implied approval of the corporation's employee's non-licensed driving.

Article 105 of the Civil Code, Articles 6 and 7 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act

A. Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Meu23899 Decided December 24, 1991 (Gong1992,652), 92Da38928 Decided March 9, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 1147), Supreme Court Decision 91Da36420 Decided December 21, 1993 (Gong194Sang, 475) (Gong1997 Decided December 28, 1993)

Han field taxi Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and one other

National Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant and 7 others

Daejeon High Court Decision 92Na105 delivered on March 23, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The so-called "no driver shall compensate for any damage caused by an accident occurred while a driver of an automobile without a license under Article 10 (1) 6 of the General Terms and Conditions of Automobile Insurance" is a provision that applies only to cases where a without license is made in a situation in which it is possible to control or manage the policyholder or the insured, and in this context, the case where a without license is made in a situation in which a policyholder or the insured is controlled or managed means a case where a policyholder or the insured is made under the explicit or implied approval of the policyholder or the insured (the Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Meu23899 delivered on December 24, 191), and the issue of whether a non-license was made under the implied approval of the policyholder or the insured, the relationship between the policyholder or the insured and the driver without a license, the status and management status of the ordinary vehicle, the circumstances and purpose of the operation concerned, and the attitude of the policyholder or the insured, etc. should be determined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff is operating a 72 Do-affiliated taxi, such as Chungcheong 1,556, which is an insured vehicle of the comprehensive automobile insurance contract of this case, as an insurance contract of this case, with the employment of the non-party 1, Kim & Kim as a maintenance assistant or maintenance assistant for the plaintiff company, and is in charge of the maintenance business. On the other hand, the non-party 1, who is on the day of the accident, was stopped at the vehicle and was in charge of the management of the closed vehicle by designating one driver as an office worker without operating the 12 vehicles per day. On the other hand, the non-party 1, who is on the day of the accident, was informed that other taxis belonging to the plaintiff caused a minor traffic accident at around 20:20 on the same day, was in the accident site where the non-party 1, who was in charge of the maintenance of the above Do-affiliated taxi, was driving of the above Do-affiliated 1, 1556 Do-dong, which was under repair.

If the facts are the same, it cannot be said that the plaintiff allowed the non-party 1 to move the type of motor vehicle necessary for the repair of the motor vehicle within the vehicle while the maintenance of the motor vehicle. In full view of the specific situation and the purpose of the non-party 1's driving without a license and the situation at the time of operation, it is difficult to conclude that the non-party 1's implied approval was given for the non-party 1's non-party 1's driving without a license in this case.

In the above purport, the judgment of the court below that rejected the Defendant’s defense of discharge, which is the insurer, based on the determination that the above exemption provision does not apply to the accident of this case, is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as asserted in the lawsuit, and the precedents of party members cited in the lawsuit are different from this case, and thus the above judgment of the court below is not necessarily contrary to the above precedents

In addition, in the case of the plaintiff's same legal entity, whether an employee's non-exclusive license was granted under the employee's explicit or implied approval should be determined by whether the employee's non-exclusive license was granted to the policyholder or the employee's representative or supervisor of the legal entity. Thus, the non-party 1, who is only the maintenance assistant of the plaintiff company, has an indivisible relation to the plaintiff's agency or institution's assistant's effect immediately belonging to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion based on the wrong premise cannot be accepted merely because it is an independent opinion.

All arguments are without merit.

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.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)