[1] The meaning of the "material fact" subject to the duty of disclosure under Article 651 of the Commercial Code, and whether the matters concerning the insured in the conclusion of the comprehensive automobile insurance contract are important matters subject to the duty of disclosure (affirmative)

[2] In a case where an insurance policyholder, who is the actual owner, user, or manager of an insured vehicle, entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with a person who does not actually use or manage the said vehicle as the insured for the purpose of paying less insurance premiums, the case holding that the insurance contract was lawfully terminated by the insurer’s termination notice under Article 651 of the Commercial Act since it constitutes a false notice

[3] Whether the insurer has an obligation to specify and explain, in a case where the matters mentioned in the insurance contract can be sufficiently predicted by the policyholder even without any separate explanation, or are already stipulated by the law (negative)

[1] "Important matters" which are liable to notify the insurer at the time of the conclusion of the insurance contract refers to the standard for the insurer to determine the contents of the insurance contract, such as whether to conclude the insurance contract or the additional note of the premium or special exemption clause, by measuring the occurrence of the insurance accident and the estimated rate of liability resulting therefrom, and if the insurer objectively knows the fact, it is thought that the insurer would not conclude the insurance contract under the same conditions at least if it becomes aware of the fact. In relation to the occurrence of the occurrence of the traffic accident, the insured matters affect the insurer to determine the level of the insurance premium by measuring the risk rate of the accident in the conclusion of the insurance contract, which is an important fact subject to the duty of disclosure.

[2] In a case where an insurance policyholder, who is the actual owner, user, or manager of an insured vehicle, entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with a person who does not actually use or manage the said vehicle for the purpose of paying less insurance premiums as the insured, the case holding that the insurance contract was lawfully terminated by the insurer’s termination notice under Article 651 of the Commercial Act, since it constitutes a false notice

[3] Since it is based on the fact that the insurer is aware of the existence of an obligation to specify and explain the insurance terms and conditions, the insurer is not aware of the important matters specified in the terms and conditions so that the policyholder would be at a disadvantage unexpectedly. Thus, even if the terms and conditions are stipulated in the terms and conditions of insurance, it cannot be deemed that the insurer has the duty to specify and explain the matters that the policyholder could have sufficiently predicted without any separate explanation, because they are common and common in the transaction, or those that are merely merely about the degree of returning or delaying the matters stipulated

[1] Article 651 of the Commercial Act / [2] Article 651 of the Commercial Act / [3] Article 638-3 (1) of the Commercial Act, Article 3 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2001Da49623 decided Nov. 13, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 2300) Supreme Court Decision 2003Da18494 decided Jun. 11, 2004 (Gong2004Ha, 1153) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 2003Da15556 decided May 30, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 1441) Supreme Court Decision 2003Da7302 decided Apr. 27, 2004 (Gong2004Da28245 decided Nov. 25, 2004)

Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorney Kim Yoon-cheon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. and one other (Law Firm Shinsung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

March 9, 2007

1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Defendant Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. shall pay to Plaintiff 1 9,00,000, 2,000, and 2,000,000 won to Plaintiff 2, and 5% per annum from April 16, 2006 to the date of this judgment, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment. Defendant Green Fire Marine Co., Ltd. shall pay to Plaintiff 1 30,000,000, 3000, and 9,000,000 won to Plaintiff 3, and 5% per annum from April 16, 2006 to the date of this judgment, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. A. On January 6, 2006, Nonparty 1 and the Defendant Green Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Green Fire”) made the insured as to Non-Party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 201206 (Temporary Number 201206) BMW 320i car (hereinafter “this case’s 1 vehicle”) as Plaintiff 3; the insurance period from January 6, 2006 to January 6, 2007 is limited to commuting and household use; the available age is at least 26 years; the insured is limited to the amount of driving age; the amount prescribed in the Enforcement Decree of the Automobile Accident Compensation Insurance Act for a motor vehicle; the amount of personal liability insurance policy for each of the above 1 vehicle; the insured’s personal injury is at least 00 won for the accident; the insured’s personal injury is at least 300 won for each of the above 1 vehicle; the insured’s personal injury is at least 00 won per person’s own insurance policy.

B. Around 05:10 on April 16, 2006, Nonparty 1 driven the instant 1 vehicle under the influence of alcohol with 0.146% of alcohol level 0.10%, and died in that shock (hereinafter “instant accident”) by driving the front part of Nonparty 2’s Busan (vehicle No. 2 omitted), the front part of the instant 1 vehicle, which was driven by the driver’s seat side of the said 1 vehicle, and was driven by the first line of the third line of the 3rd line in front of the Pung-dong, Busan Shipping Daegu High-gu, Busan High-gu, with the first line of the third line of the 3rd line of the 3rd line of the 3rd line of the 3rd line of the 3rd line of the 3rd line of the 1st line.

C. Meanwhile, Plaintiff 1’s mother of the deceased Nonparty 1 (hereinafter “the deceased”), Plaintiff 2, Plaintiff 3 is the deceased’s name and the deceased’s part, and Defendant Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Hyundai Sea”) is an insurer who entered into an individual automobile comprehensive insurance contract with Nonparty 2 regarding the instant 2 vehicles owned by the deceased.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1 to 3, Eul evidence 1-1 to 23, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to claims against Defendant Hyundai Sea

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 2 asserted that the accident of this case occurred due to negligence by the non-party 2, who is the driver of the second vehicle of this case, and therefore, the defendant Hyundai Sea, as the insurer of the second vehicle of this case, is liable for all damages suffered by the above plaintiffs due to the accident of this case, while the defendant Hyundai Sea, while the accident of this case occurred due to unilateral negligence caused by the plaintiff while driving the first vehicle of this case under the influence of alcohol level 0.146% under the influence of alcohol level 0.146% by the deceased while driving the second vehicle of this case under the influence of alcohol level, and as the non-party 2, who normally driven the road on which the central line was installed with his own lane, was normally driven by his own lane, he did not have a duty of care to expect the first vehicle of this case to go beyond the central line, and therefore, the defendant Hyundai Sea of this case must be exempted.

(b) Markets:

(1) In general, since a motor vehicle driver who operates a road along which a median line is marked along his/her own lane is ordinarily trusted in the reliance of the operation of the motor vehicle by maintaining his/her lane, barring any special circumstance in which it is possible to anticipate the abnormal operation of the other motor vehicle in advance, the other motor vehicle has no duty of care to expect the other motor vehicle to drive the motor vehicle by entering the median line (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da67464, Feb. 9, 2001).

(2) In light of the overall purport of the arguments in this case, the point of accident of this case is a road that connects the above two straight lines to the right direction of the first vehicle of this case, which is a 3rd line installed with the center line of double yellow solid lines. The deceased was under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.146% at the time of the accident. The deceased was under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.146% at the time of the accident. The road of this case is under the speed of 70 km at the time of speed. On the other hand, the non-party 2 was under the influence of the above 120 km of speed. The non-party 1 was under the influence of the driver’s duty of care to drive the above 2nd vehicle of this case, which is opposite to the moving direction of the first vehicle of this case. The non-party 1 was under the influence of the driver’s duty of care to find the above part of the vehicle of this case at the center of the above 1nd vehicle of this case.

3. Determination as to the claim against the Defendant’s green fire

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

According to the above basic facts, Defendant Green Fire is an insurer for the first vehicle of this case, and barring any special circumstance, Plaintiff 1 is obligated to pay KRW 30,000,000 for self-physical accident insurance proceeds, and Plaintiff 3 is obligated to pay KRW 9,00,000 for self-motor vehicle accident insurance proceeds.

B. Determination of the parties’ assertion

(1) Determination on the assertion that the insurance contract was terminated due to the Defendant’s breach of duty of disclosure

(A) The chief of the State

Defendant Green Fire Co., Ltd., when entering into the instant insurance contract with Defendant Green Fire, the Deceased, as the actual owner of the first vehicle of this case, used it individually, but concluded the instant insurance contract with Plaintiff 3 as the insured for the purpose of paying less insurance premium. Accordingly, Defendant Green Fire notified the Deceased and its bereaved family members of the termination of the instant insurance contract in accordance with Article 651 of the Commercial Act and the terms and conditions of the instant insurance contract on the ground that it violated the obligation to notify the Deceased before and after entering into the said contract, and thus, Defendant Green Fire did not have any obligation to pay the Plaintiff 1 and the Plaintiff 3 insurance money for self-accident and self-motor vehicle accident.

(b) the sales board;

"Important matters" means the standard for the insurer to notify the insurer at the time of the occurrence of the insurance accident and the commencement rate of liability to the insurer, which is to determine whether to conclude the insurance contract or the contents of the insurance contract, such as an additional entry of the premium or special exemption clause, by measuring the occurrence of the insurance accident and the loss incurred therefrom, and if the insurer objectively knows the fact, it would not conclude the contract if it is objectively known that the insurer would not enter into the contract or at least the same condition (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da49623, Nov. 13, 2003). The insured matters are matters affecting the determination of the level of the insurance premium by measuring the risk rate of the accident when the insurer enters into the insurance contract in relation to the occurrence of the occurrence of the traffic accident, which is an important fact subject to duty of disclosure.

In this case, the deceased's 1 to 3, Eul's evidence 1, Eul's evidence 2, Eul's 1 to 3, Eul's evidence 1 to 6, and the purport of oral argument as to the deceased's 1 to 3, Eul's 4 to 6, and the deceased's 1 to 9,00,00 won were purchased from non-party 3 for personal use and management of the insurance premium. The deceased's insurance contract with the above 1 to 3,000 won was concluded for the above 1 to 0,000 insurance premium for the purpose of this case's 1 to 0,000 insurance premium for the above 1 to 6,000 insurance premium for the deceased's 1 to 6,000 won was paid to the non-party 1 to the 3,000 insurance premium for the above 1 to 3,000 insurance premium for the plaintiff's 1 to 6,006.

Therefore, upon entering into the instant insurance contract, the Deceased notified the Defendant, an insurer, of false information on the insured’s green fire. As long as the Defendant Green Fire notified the Deceased and his bereaved families of the termination of the instant insurance contract within one month from the date of knowing the false notification on the ground that it was false notification on the deceased’s insured, the instant insurance contract was lawfully terminated in accordance with the notification on the termination of the contract of the Defendant Green Fire.

(2) Determination on the assertion of violation of the duty to clarify and explain by Plaintiffs 1 and 3

(A) The chief of the State

Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 3 asserted that, at the time of entering into the instant insurance contract, Defendant Green Fire may not terminate the instant insurance contract on the ground that it violated the deceased’s duty to notify and explain the terms and conditions of the insurance contract related to the insured system, in particular, it did not perform its duty to explain and explain because it did not provide the deceased with a specific and detailed explanation on the disadvantage of termination of the contract, etc. to be incurred in the event of such defective notification.

(b) the sales board;

The insurer’s recognition of the duty to specify and explain the insurance terms and conditions is based on the reason that the policyholder would avoid unexpected disadvantages because the important matters prescribed in the insurance terms and conditions are the content of the contract while the policyholder is unaware. Thus, even if the matters prescribed in the insurance terms and conditions are general and common in the transaction, it cannot be viewed that the insurer has the duty to explain and explain even about the matters that the policyholder could have sufficiently predicted without any separate explanation, or that are merely about the extent that the content already prescribed in the Acts and subordinate statutes has been returned or added (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da15556, May 30, 2003).

In the instant case, there is no clear evidence to acknowledge that, upon entering into the instant insurance contract, Defendant Nin Fire could terminate the insurance contract with a person who is not the actual operator of the insured, in violation of the duty of disclosure. However, as seen earlier, the Deceased did not know of the fact that, in entering into the instant automobile insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff 1, it would be more insurance premiums to be paid if the Plaintiff 3 is the insured than the Plaintiff 3, and requested the Plaintiff 3 as the insured on January 5, 2006 to purchase the automobile insurance contract with the Plaintiff 3 as the insured on January 1, 2006, and that, at least 8% of the annual insurance premiums would not have been paid to Nonparty 4 through Nonparty 3 as the insured on January 6, 206, the insured would not have been paid to the Plaintiff 1 as the insured on January 7, 2006, and that, at least 9% of the annual average insurance premiums would have been paid to the Plaintiff 1 as the insured on January 6, 20006, 2006.

Therefore, it cannot be viewed that Defendant Green Fire was at an unexpected disadvantage due to failure to clearly explain and explain the circumstances that the insurance contract may be terminated in violation of the duty of disclosure in the event that Defendant Green Fire was falsely notified of the insured in entering into the instant insurance contract with the Deceased. Therefore, the Plaintiffs cannot claim the violation of the duty of disclosure on the insured of Defendant Green Fire.

(3) Determination on the remainder of the allegations by Plaintiffs 1 and 3

Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 3 also knew that the insured was different from the insured at the time of entering into the instant insurance contract, and thus, they cannot be terminated on the ground of the deceased’s breach of duty of disclosure. ② Moreover, the Defendant’s Green Fire’s notice of termination of the instant insurance contract ought to take place around April 16, 2006, more than one month after the date of the instant accident, which was the date of the accident, around June 12, 2006. As such, the Defendant’s Green Fire already knew of the difference between the insured and the named insured at the time of entering into the instant insurance contract, it is difficult to view that it was difficult to view that the Defendant’s Green Fire was unaware of the false notice on the deceased’s insured or was unaware of it due to gross negligence, and there was no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s notice of termination was false and unjust for the reason that it was within 60 months after the date of the instant accident, and there was no evidence to support that it was within 60 months of the Plaintiff’s notice of the accident.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim against the defendants of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Han Han-Gyeong