[1] The scope of application of the General Automobile Insurance Exemption Clause

[2] In a case where a driver's license is suspended or revoked through legitimate procedures, whether the driver's license is subject to a non-exclusive license exemption clause even in an act of driving without knowledge of such fact (affirmative)

[3] The case holding that the driver's license exemption clause shall apply to a case where the driver was duly notified or notified after the disposition of driver's license revocation in accordance with the unpaid aptitude test but the driver knew the fact

[1] Where, in light of the general terms and conditions of motor vehicle insurance, there is no limitation to who is a person driving without a license, the above provision shall be deemed null and void in light of the provisions of Articles 6(1) and (2), 7(2) and 7(3) of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions as a provision which loses fairness in violation of the principle of good faith, and thus, it shall be deemed null and void in light of the provisions of Article 6(1) and (2), and Article 7(2) and (3) of the Act. However, it shall be deemed valid to the extent that, to the extent that the provision of the insurer’s exemption is interpreted only where a

[2] The exemption clause under the General Terms and Conditions of Automobile General Insurance provides that the occurrence of an accident is not based on the reason that the occurrence of an accident was not based on the driving without a license, but on the ground that it was excluded from the insurer's insurance subject to the insurer's insurance, considering the fact that the accident was under driving without a license at the time of the accident, so even if the driver's license is suspended or revoked, it shall be deemed that the driver's license falls under the unlicensed driving under the above exemption clause, and as long as the driver's license was suspended or revoked in accordance

[3] The case holding that in case where the commissioner of a district police agency takes a disposition to revoke a driver's license on the ground that the driver did not take an aptitude test within a fixed period and notified his/her driver of the above disposition at his/her domicile, but the notification of the disposition was returned due to his/her unknown whereabouts, and the above disposition was officially announced to the competent police station, and the above disposition was legally effective, and the accident that occurred after the effect of the disposition was taken shall be deemed an accident that occurred when the driver of an insured motor vehicle

[1] Articles 659(1) and 663 of the Commercial Act, Articles 6 and 7 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act, Article 2 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 659(1) of the Commercial Act, Article 105 of the Civil Act, Article 78 of the Road Traffic Act / [3] Article 659(1) of the Commercial Act, Article 105 of the Civil Act, Articles 74 and 78 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 53 of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Da23899 Decided December 24, 1991 (Gong1992, 652) Supreme Court Decision 92Da38928 Decided March 9, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 1147) Supreme Court Decision 97Da19298 Decided September 12, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3096) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 97Da9390 Decided September 9, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3048), Supreme Court Decision 97Da19298 Decided September 12, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3048), Supreme Court Decision 97Da39898 Decided March 39, 198 (Gong1997Ha, 309, 309) / [309Da9897997 Decided September 197, 1997, 19997

Jinno and two others (Attorney Choi Young-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Tran Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Jeong Jong-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 96Na32989 delivered on December 11, 1996

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court recognizes the following facts.

On February 4, 1995, the non-party entered into a personal automobile comprehensive insurance contract (hereinafter referred to as "the insurance contract of this case") with the non-party on February 4, 1995, with the insured vehicle Seoul 1Mo2369, and with the insurance period from February 4, 1995 to February 24, 1995, with the insurance period from February 24, 190 to February 4, 1996. According to Article 10 (1) 6 of the defendant's Personal Automobile General Insurance Clause, which is the contents of the insurance contract of this case, the "damage caused by the accident occurred when the driver of the insured vehicle without a license" is defined as "unlicensed or non-qualified driving in violation of the provisions on driver's license of the Road Traffic Act or the Construction Machinery Management Act, and includes driving at the time when the driver's license is under suspension or is prohibited from being operated."

Around 23:40 on May 3, 1995, the Nonparty was driving the said car, and was driving on the road in front of 335-2 of the north-dong 335-2 of Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, Seo-gu, Seoul, to the north-dong bank from the north-dong bank to the north-dong bank, and was driving on the north-dong 50km to the north-dong bank, the Nonparty received the Non-party's Master's Vehicle Inspection which was opened from the right side of the crosswalk installed in the area to the left side of the above vehicle, and caused the death of the deceased immediately at the same place due to the two alleys, etc.

On the other hand, on December 1, 1985, the non-party obtained Class-II ordinary licenses and Class-I ordinary licenses on the 22th of the same month, and received an aptitude test on January 6, 1990, and received renewal of the license from the Commissioner of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Provincial Police Agency. However, on a renewed license, despite the period of aptitude test from October 8, 1993 to January 7, 1994, the commissioner of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Police Agency revoked the non-party's driver's license on the ground of the non-party's failure to take an aptitude test on January 9, 1995. The commissioner of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Police Agency sent the non-party's notification of revocation as the non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's 1's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's 1's non-party's non-party's non-party's 1's non-party's non-party's non-party 9.

The court below held that the accident of this case based on the above factual basis was an accident that occurred while the non-party was driving without a license under the condition that the driver's license was revoked, and thus, the defendant is not liable for damages arising therefrom.

2. In the insurance contract of this case concluded between the Nonparty and the Defendant, the provisions of Article 10 (1) 6 of the Personal Automobile General Insurance Clause providing that "no compensation shall be made for any damage caused by an accident that occurs while a driver of an insured motor vehicle without a license is driving without any restriction, or even when the owner of an accident without a license does not have control or management possibility of the policyholder or the insured. However, in a case where the above provision is deemed to apply even when a driver without a license for driving without a license violates the principle of trust and good faith, the above provision should be deemed to be null and void in light of the provisions of Article 6 (1), (2), and Article 7 subparagraph 2, and 3 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act, but it shall not be deemed null and void within the limit of interpreting the provision of the insurer's exemption to the extent that it was made under the explicit or implied approval of the policyholder or the insured, etc., and as long as the accident occurred at the time of an accident without a license, it shall not be deemed to be null and void in accordance with 93.

According to Articles 78 (1) 2 and 74 (1) and (2) of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 4872 of Jan. 5, 1995), and Article 53 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, if a person who has obtained a driver's license fails to take an aptitude test within the period of aptitude test, the Commissioner of the Local Police Agency may cancel the driver's license or suspend the validity of the driver's license within the scope of one year according to the standards set by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs. If the driver's license is cancelled or suspended, the Commissioner of the Local Police Agency shall notify the person who has obtained the driver's license of the fact under the conditions as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs. If it is impossible to give notice of the change of address, the Commissioner of the Local Police Agency shall notify the person who has obtained the driver's license of the fact to the police station having jurisdiction over the domicile stated in the driver's license of 10 days, and thus, the above comprehensive driver's license insurance contract becomes effective after the accident.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or in the misapprehension of legal principle, and the ground of appeal that Article 10 of the General Clause of the Personal Automobile Insurance should be modified as not to apply to a case where a driver is not aware of the fact of driving without a license.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)