The case holding that in recognizing an insurance company's employer's liability with respect to a third party's damage that has not been paid insurance money pursuant to special terms and conditions because the head of the insurance company entered into an insurance contract to which the special terms and conditions are not applicable due to negligence not verifying the intention of the policyholder, the fault of the policyholder is considered as

The case holding that in calculating the amount of damages of the above inheritor on the ground that, even if the substitute driver died due to a traffic accident while driving, the policyholder's intent to subscribe to the motor vehicle comprehensive insurance covered by the special terms and conditions which are paid to his heir is only covered by the motor vehicle comprehensive insurance not covered by the above special terms and conditions due to negligence not verified by the head of the office of the insurance company, and that the heir of the substitute driver who died due to the traffic accident recognized the insurer's liability for damages, and that there was negligence on the part of the damaged party in calculating the amount of damages of the

Articles 756(1), 763, and 396 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

International Fire Insurance Corporation

Chuncheon District Court of the first instance (89Da1462 delivered on July 1, 200)

1. Of the judgment below, the part of the plaintiff's complaint concerning the conjunctive claim ordering payment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 2,500,000 won with 5% per annum from July 9, 1988 to May 31, 1991, 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, and 25% per annum from each of them to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's appeal as to the main claim and the conjunctive claim are dismissed, respectively.

3. All the costs of the lawsuit shall be divided into four parts of the first and second instances, and three parts shall be borne by the plaintiff, the remainder by the defendant, and the other part by the defendant.

4. The above paragraph 1(a) may be provisionally executed.

The judgment of the court below shall be revoked.

The judgment that the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 10,00,000 with five percent per annum from July 9, 1988 to the date of this judgment, twenty-five percent per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, and twenty-five percent per annum (the plaintiff is the principal claim and the claim for damages as the preliminary claim).

1. On June 4, 198, the non-party 1 stated the above non-party 1 as the insured's employee; the insured's (vehicle number omitted); the insurance period from June 5, 198 to December 5, 198; the death insurance amount per capita due to his loss; and the insurance amount due to his loss is KRW 10,00,000; and the insurance amount due to his loss is KRW 4,070,000 on the same day; the non-party 2, as an employee of the above non-party, paid KRW 276,040 as the insurance premium on the same day; the non-party 1, as an employee of the above non-party, did not have any dispute between the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, as the owner of the non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's personal driver's personal driver's life insurance certificate and the non-party 1, as the non-party 2's personal driver's personal insurance certificate.

2. Judgment on the main claim

On December 5, 1987, the Plaintiff entered into a comprehensive personal license automobile insurance contract with the Defendant Company for the first time through Nonparty 3, which is the main cause of the claim in this case. On June 5, 1988, the Plaintiff renewed the above contract as before. At the time of the initial contract, Nonparty 3 explained that the comprehensive insurance contract, which Nonparty 1 joined, is a comprehensive insurance contract, which is the owner, can receive insurance benefits even if the accident occurred while other than the owner, and Nonparty 1 believed it and entered into such an insurance contract. Thus, the insurance contract between Nonparty 1 and the Defendant is subject to the special terms and conditions as explained by Nonparty 1, and it is excluded from the application of the general terms and conditions contrary thereto. Thus, the Defendant is difficult to recognize that Nonparty 2 died due to the accident in this case and the Plaintiff’s heir, who is the Plaintiff’s heir, has a duty to pay KRW 10,000,000,000, which is the amount of death insurance policy indicated in the insurance policy (the Plaintiff’s heir or its heir).

3. Determination on the conjunctive claim

In light of the above facts, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 8, Eul evidence No. 4, Gap evidence No. 7, Eul evidence No. 9, Eul evidence No. 9, Eul evidence No. 9, and Gap evidence No. 3, which were issued by the non-party No. 1 upon the non-party No. 4's request of the above non-party No. 9, the non-party No. 1's personal automobile insurance company's purchase of the insurance premium to the non-party No. 8's non-party No. 8's personal automobile insurance premium and the non-party No. 9's personal automobile No. 1's personal automobile No. 8's insurance premium for which the non-party No. 8's personal automobile No. 9, which were issued by the non-party No. 1's non-party No. 1's non-party No. 8's personal automobile insurance company's non-party No.

Thus, the non-party 5, an employee of the defendant company with expertise in the insurance, did not correspond to the comprehensive insurance for the individual driver's automobile that was enforced at the time of the initial conclusion of the insurance contract by the non-party 4, and considering the fact that the insurance premium paid by the non-party 1 is the same amount as the comprehensive insurance premium, the non-party 1 has an interest in whether the insurance contract the non-party 1 intends to purchase is subject to the special insurance for the extension of the others' driving burden, and the non-party 1 caused the damage that the non-party 1 could not claim for the indemnity insurance money which was caused by the non-party 2's death due to the accident in this case. Thus, the defendant company is liable as an employer for damages against the non-party 5's tort.

However, according to the above evidence, in entering into an insurance contract with the insurance company, it is necessary to find out the important matters of the contract, such as the insurance type, insurance premium, and contents of the insurance accident for which the insurance money is paid, and to confirm it well after the conclusion of the contract, it is necessary to conclude the insurance contract with the defendant company by presenting to the non-party 3 the insurance premium receipt which is the personal license automobile insurance contract for the non-party 4 issued, and to conclude the same contract again on June 5, 198, and to recognize the fact that it was excessive. Since the negligence of the non-party 1 is the cause of the above loss, it is reasonable that the above non-party 2 was the non-party 1's employee and was in a position to receive benefits due to the above insurance contract, it is reasonable to consider the same negligence on the part of the victim in calculating the amount of damages to be paid by the defendant, but such ratio is 50 percent in light of the above facts.

Therefore, it is reasonable to determine the amount to be paid by the Defendant out of KRW 10,00,00,00 of the self-paid insurance money that the deceased died due to the accident of this case, and the amount to be paid by the deceased out of KRW 10,00,00. According to the records of No. 5 (No. 5), there is no dispute over the establishment, it can be recognized that the plaintiff, as his mother, was jointly inherited the property of the deceased, as the non-party 6, 7, and wife, who is the family heir, due to the death of the non-party 2. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff the amount equivalent to the plaintiff's shares in inheritance among the above amount, and the above deceased's damages for delay from July 9, 198 to May 31, 1991, with the annual rate of KRW 5,000,000 (5,000,000 / 2) under the Civil Act from the date of this decision.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim of this case is without merit, and the conjunctive claim shall be dismissed, and the remainder shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition and without merit. Since the judgment of the court below is unfair with respect to the conjunctive claim, the part against the plaintiff as to the conjunctive claim which ordered the above payment shall be revoked and the defendant shall be ordered to pay the above amount, and the appeal as to the plaintiff's conjunctive claim and the remaining appeal as to the plaintiff's conjunctive claim shall be dismissed without merit, and the costs of the lawsuit shall be four parts of the first and second trials, and three parts of the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff, the remainder by the defendant, and the provisional execution shall be attached to it.

Judges Park Ill-young (Presiding Judge)