With respect to the validity of the provisions of the long-term injury insurance contract which prescribe as damages not to compensate for the injury due to the insured's unauthorized driving.

In the case of a licenseless driving, it cannot be denied that the possibility of the occurrence of an accident is higher than the case of a person who does not drive or drive a licensed driver, or an individual vehicle with respect to the possibility of the occurrence of an accident is not likely to impair the homogeneity between the members in the insurance. In addition, even though a licenseless driving has committed an intentional criminal act, its intention is about the unauthorized driving itself, and its degree does not go against the good faith and ethics of the parties in the insurance contract with compensation for damage caused by its intentional death or injury, and thus, it cannot be said that the degree does not go against the good faith and ethics of the parties in the insurance contract. Therefore, in the ordinary terms of the long-term injury insurance contract for the long-term welfare injury, the provision that sets forth the injury caused by a licenseless driving of the insured as a whole includes not only the act caused by an intentional act, but also the act caused by negligence (including negligence) in light of the provisions of Articles 659(2) and 663 of the Commercial Act, it is null and void.

Articles 659(2) and 663 of the Commercial Act

Attorney Kim Sang-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korea Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 89Na7544 delivered on June 2, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

As to the Defendant’s Attorney’s ground of appeal:

1. In short, the theory of lawsuit provides that the general terms and conditions of the long-term injury insurance contract of this case concluded between the defendant and the non-party in both sides for non-licensed driving of the insured is invalid in light of the provisions of Articles 659(2) and 663 of the Commercial Act. In other words, the insurance is originally premised on the homogeneity of risks between the members, and the non-licensed driving does not guarantee the homogeneity of risks due to high probability of accidents. Furthermore, the insurance contract is based on the high level of good faith and ethics of the parties, and it is natural to compensate the non-licensed driving of a motor vehicle for damages caused by the intentional act subject to criminal punishment. It is naturally consistent with the nature of the insurance, and therefore, it is not consistent with the nature of the insurance, and thus, it is not possible to be viewed as a special agreement between the parties under Article 663 of the Commercial Act, and the insurance statistics and the insurance premiums are calculated based on the probability that the insurance premium is calculated based on the insurance premium of this case and its probability that the insurance premium will be balanced between the insured's and the insurance premium will be calculated.

2. However, Article 659(2) of the Commercial Act provides, "An insurer shall not be exempted from liability to pay the insured amount even in the event of an accident resulting from the gross negligence of the policyholder, the insured, or the beneficiary, in respect of an insurance contract which has caused the death or injury as an insured event." However, this provision provides, "this provision shall not apply in the case of death due to the execution of death penalty." Article 663 provides, "The provisions of this Chapter shall not change the disadvantage of the policyholder or the beneficiary by a special contract between the parties." In this case, since the insurance contract which has caused the death or injury as an insured event is governed by the insurance contract which caused the death or injury, and therefore,

In the case of unlicensed driving, it is impossible to deny that there is a high possibility of the occurrence of an insurance accident compared to the case of a person who does not drive or drive a licensed driver, or an individual vehicle with respect to the possibility of the occurrence of an insurance accident is not a degree of undermining the homogeneity between the members in the insurance. In addition, in the case of an unlicensed driving, the intentional criminal act subject to criminal punishment has been committed, but the intention is not directly related to the unlicensed driving, unless there are special circumstances, and the intention is not related to the death or injury, and it is not related to the act of suicide or intentional self-reliance, or the act of murder or bodily injury by a beneficiary, and the degree is different from the non-ethic nature of the act of murder or bodily injury by the beneficiary, so it cannot be said that the degree

In addition, since the insurer is based on the probability of the occurrence of an accident calculated by statistical and large-scale rules in calculating insurance premiums and insurance proceeds, if the defendant calculated the accident caused by the insured's non-licensed driving, excluding the accident caused by the insured's non-licensed driving from the insurance accident, it cannot be said that the agreement in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Commercial Act is valid even if it is the same as the theory that the non-licensed driving accident exemption agreement would cause any imbalance between the two in

Therefore, in light of the provisions of Article 659(2) and Article 663 of the Commercial Act, if the provisions of the insurance contract on the exemption from non-driving accidents in this case purport not only the case where the insurance accident was caused by an intentional act, but also the case where it was caused by an act evaluated by negligence (including negligence), the judgment of the court below is justified in holding that the insurance contract is null and void due to an act evaluated by negligence, and that the insurance contract does not vary with the approval of the Minister of Finance and Economy, and further, the judgment of the court below is also justified in holding that the accident in this case cannot be deemed to have been caused by an intentional act or intentional act corresponding to the intention

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 Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)