[1] The purpose of the provision of Article 158 (1) of the Insurance Business Act and the meaning of "damage inflicted on the policyholder in the course of soliciting insurance" under the same provision

[2] The case holding that where an insurance solicitor voluntarily terminated an insurance contract by using his resident registration certificate and seal held by a policyholder in the course of soliciting insurance, and embezzled the loan and cancellation refund by cancelling the insurance contract, the insurer's liability for damages under Article 158 (1) of the Insurance Business Act shall be limited to 80% of the insurer's liability for damages on the ground that the insurance policy received from the insurance solicitor was negligent, such as not knowing the insurer's identity, even though the insurance policy received from the insurance solicitor was not normally stated

[1] Article 158(1) of the Insurance Business Act provides that an insurer shall pay strict liability to a policyholder with respect to any damage inflicted on a policyholder in connection with the solicitation of insurance, and shall have its significance in order to protect the interests of a policyholder and to protect the sound growth of the insurance business at the same time by imposing liability if the damage was caused by an act committed by an insurance solicitor or an insurance agency of an insurer, and by taking liability close to strict liability. In this case, the damage inflicted on a policyholder in connection with the solicitation of insurance shall include not only the damage inflicted upon a policyholder by failing to fulfill or neglecting his/her duty to explain the insurance contract at the time of the conclusion of the insurance contract, but also the damage inflicted upon a policyholder in relation to the contents of the insurance due to a failure of the insurance solicitor to receive the insurance money from the policyholder and the damage suffered by the insurance solicitor entrusted with the authority to receive the insurance money from the insurance solicitor and the insurance solicitor maintained the insurance contract concluded by the solicitation of the insurance solicitor as well as the damage inflicted upon the policyholder by receiving the insurance premium or accepting the insurance premium beyond the scope delegated by the insurance contract and accepting it.

[2] The case holding that in case where an insurance solicitor, after acting as a broker for the conclusion of the insurance solicitation, arbitrarily obtained a loan of terms and conditions on the insurance contract from the resident registration certificate and seal which was obtained from the insurance solicitor during the continuous insurance solicitation process and embezzled the loan and cancellation refund, the insurance solicitor's liability for damages under Article 158 (1) of the Insurance Business Act is limited to 80% of the liability for damages on the ground that there was negligence on the part of the insurer, even though the insurance solicitor did not normally indicate the total premium amount on the insurance policy received from the insurance solicitor, even though the policyholder

[1] Article 158 (1) of the Insurance Business Act / [2] Article 158 (1) of the Insurance Business Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Da26425 delivered on November 14, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3814 delivered on November 27, 1998) Supreme Court Decision 98Da23690 delivered on November 27, 1998 (Gong199Sang, 39Sang)

[Defendant-Appellee] The Head of the Dongyang-gu Office

Geum Ho Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Seocho, Attorney Park Sang-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 184,294,450 won with 25% interest per annum from September 19, 1998 to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-fifth of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 209,195,750 won with 25% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the plaintiff.

1. Fact-related relationship;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by Gap's testimony of Gap's 1 to 7 1, 2, 11-1 to 43, Eul's 1-5, and Eul's testimony.

A. Upon the recommendation of the non-party who is an insurance solicitor registered with the Financial Supervisory Service by the defendant company, the plaintiff entered into an insurance contract with the defendant company as described in the insurance type column of the attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "List No. 1"), and received each insurance policy (securities number is the same as the number indicated in the above list No. 1 insurance policy column) through the above non-party through the above non-party. As insurance premiums under each of the above insurance contracts, 123,670,450 won was paid to the above non-party via the above non-party (the plaintiff was 4,481,50 won as insurance premium for the insurance contract No. 1 No. 1; 6,164,00 won as insurance premium for the insurance contract No. 2; 2109,200 as insurance premium for the insurance contract No. 3. 1600; 160,500 won as an insurance premium for each insurance contract). However, there is no evidence to acknowledge each amount exceeding the above 16060.16

B. However, the above Nonparty: (a) made use of the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate and seal that the Plaintiff had been authorized by the Plaintiff to use for concluding other insurance contracts; (b) forged the certificate of loan use for each insurance contract listed in the above list; (c) used the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate and seal to use for entering into the above list; (d) used to use the loan for each insurance contract listed in the above list; (e) used to use the loan for each Defendant company; and (e) used to use the money corresponding to the amount stated in the column for the first list loan; and (e) used and embezzled the loan for free consumption; (b) without any authority of the Plaintiff as of the date indicated in the cancellation date of the first list; (c) without any authority of the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate and seal granted by the Plaintiff; and (d) submitted to the employee in charge of the Defendant company the paper for each insurance contract using the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate and seal; and (e) embezzled

C. In addition, on March 2, 1998, the Plaintiff entered into each insurance contract, such as the list Nos. 2 (hereinafter “List No. 2”) of the attached Table Nos. 2 (hereinafter “the attached Table No. 2”) upon the Non-Party’s recommendation, and KRW 59,00,000 out of the total amount of lump-sum insurance premium paid in an amount equivalent to the amount indicated in the above list No. 75,780 (52,980,000 + 2,800,000) in cash, and paid the above Non-Party KRW 16,780,000 (75,780,000-59,000) in lieu of a loan claim held by the above Non-Party. The above Non-Party arbitrarily prepared an insurance contract with the Defendant Company and delivered the insurance policy to the Plaintiff without any authority to conclude the insurance contract without any authority.

D. On July 198, the Plaintiff reported the news report that the Nonparty attempted to kill her husband by searching for the receipt of insurance proceeds, and avoided several times, and confirmed the Defendant Company whether each of the above insurance contracts was properly concluded and maintained by delegation to the above Nonparty. As stated in the above Section B, the Plaintiff became aware that each of the insurance contracts described in the List No. 1, as described in the above Section B, the Nonparty, without any delegation of authority from the Plaintiff with respect to each of the insurance contracts listed in the List No. 1, was subject to the loan of the terms and conditions, terminated the contract, and embezzled the termination refund, and each of the insurance contracts described in the List No. 2, were excluded between the Defendant and the contract.

2. The plaintiff's ground for claim

As the cause of the instant claim, each insurance contract of the first and second lists was concluded or subscribed by the said Nonparty while engaging in soliciting insurance products of the Defendant Company. Therefore, the Defendant Company is liable for compensating the damages suffered by the said Nonparty due to the said Nonparty’s embezzlement pursuant to Article 158 of the Insurance Business Act, which is an insurance solicitor, pursuant to Article 158 of the said Act. The Plaintiff claimed damages equivalent to the amount paid by the said Nonparty as the insurance premium against

3. Determination

A. Determination on the claim for damages as to the insurance contract mentioned in the first list

Article 158(1) of the Insurance Business Act provides that "the insurer shall be liable to compensate for any loss inflicted upon the policyholder in the course of soliciting insurance contracts by its executives, employees, insurance solicitors or insurance agencies: Provided, That this shall not apply in cases of insurance solicitors or insurance agencies, if an insurer who has entrusted solicitation has paid due attention to the entrustment of the relevant insurance solicitors or insurance agencies, and has made efforts to prevent any loss inflicted on the policyholder in the course of soliciting insurance contracts." This provision provides that "the insurer shall be liable to compensate for the loss inflicted upon the policyholder in the course of soliciting insurance contracts, and the insurer shall be liable to compensate for the loss inflicted upon the policyholder by failing to comply with the insurance contracts in order to protect the policyholder's interests and at the same time to protect the policyholder's interests by failing to comply with the strict liability if the loss was caused by an act committed by the insurance solicitors or insurance agencies, or by failing to obtain the insurance solicitors' rights to receive the insurance contracts from the insurance solicitors or insurance solicitors by failing to obtain the insurance solicitors's rights to receive the insurance contracts from the same day."

In light of the above facts, the above non-party, as an insurance solicitor registered with the Financial Supervisory Service by the defendant company as an insurer, was an insurance solicitor registered with the Financial Supervisory Service, and was mediated the conclusion of each insurance contract described in the first list between the plaintiff and the defendant, and obtained a loan of each of the above insurance contracts by using the plaintiff's resident registration certificate and seal held by the plaintiff during the continuous insurance solicitation process against the plaintiff, and embezzled each of the above loans and the cancellation refund. Thus, the defendant company is liable to compensate for damages suffered by the plaintiff due to forgery and embezzlement of the above non-party's private document. The plaintiff's damages are 123,670,450 (4,091,8505,8505,152,000 +13,067,600 +100,0000 +100,000 +350,000,000 +350,000).

B. Determination on the claim for damages related to insurance listed in the 2 List

(1) Occurrence of damages liability

According to the above facts, the above non-party, who is an insurance solicitor registered with the Financial Supervisory Service, recommended the plaintiff to purchase the insurance as described in the above list No. 2, confirmed the plaintiff's intent to subscribe, and received the insurance premium in lump sum, but embezzled the above insurance premium without mediating the conclusion of such insurance contract. As seen above, the above non-party's tort constitutes a tort in the solicitation of an insurance solicitor as stipulated in Article 158 (1) of the Insurance Business Act. Thus, the defendant company should compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused to the plaintiff due to the above non-party's tort, unless there are special circumstances.

(2) Limitation of liability

However, according to each of the above evidence Nos. 6 and 7-1 and 2, each insurance policy that the plaintiff received from the above non-party with respect to the insurance contracts listed in the above list No. 2, is written in an amount equivalent to a total amount of insurance premium for each item, and its total insurance premium amount also written in a different form from that of the other part, and as such, it is reasonable to limit the defendant company's liability for damages to 80% of the amount of damages, if it is confirmed by the defendant company, considering the doubt as to whether the above insurance policy was lawfully prepared, as well as whether the above insurance policy was lawfully prepared, and it is possible to prevent damages if it was confirmed by the defendant company, as well as the fact that the plaintiff entrusted the above non-party with the payment of insurance premium for each insurance contract listed in the list No. 1, but did not receive a receipt from the above non-party.

The defendant asserts that the above non-party only has the authority to solicit insurance, and the fact that the non-party paid the insurance premium to him without confirming the fact that he did not have the authority to receive the insurance premium, should also be considered in the limitation of liability. However, according to the evidence above, the above non-party can be recognized that the non-party received the insurance premium for each insurance contract listed in the first list from the plaintiff and paid it to the defendant, and the defendant also received it without any objection. Thus, the defendant delegated the above non-party with the authority to receive the insurance premium at least implicitly, thereby allowing the above non-party to receive the insurance premium on his behalf. Thus, the fact that the plaintiff did not confirm whether to receive the insurance premium

(3) Calculation of damages

The amount of damages that the Plaintiff suffered by the tort of the above non-party regarding the subscription to the insurance contract stated in the second list shall be equivalent to KRW 75,780,00,000, which was paid as each insurance premium stated in the above list. Thus, the amount of damages that the Defendant is liable to compensate shall be KRW 60,624,00 (75,780,000 x 80%) multiplied by the limitation of liability ratio.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 25% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is obviously next day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, as claimed by the plaintiff, as a result of the date on which each damages occurred, to the plaintiff's sum of the above damages for delay, 184,294,450 (123,670,450 +60,624,00) and the damages for delay from September 19, 198 to the day of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder of the claims are dismissed as

Judges Kim Hong-ho (Presiding Judge)