2017Da208232. Action, etc. demanding confirmation of the right to receive vessel insurance proceeds

2017Da208249 (Counterclaim) A lawsuit to confirm the person entitled to deposit money, etc.

SBBS Co., Ltd.

Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Kim Chang-joon et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant

GM Sping Coina (GM Sping Coinap.)

Attorney Jeong Byung-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 2015Na2029365 (main claim), 2015Na2029372 decided January 10, 2017

(Counterclaim) Judgment

December 27, 2019

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Whether the Plaintiff (the counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) is the insured of the instant insurance contract

A. The instant insurance contract is a hull insurance contract which covers the loss or damage of the ship as an insured event.

the ship of this case, which is an insurance subject matter, is registered in Cambodia, and is owned by the ship.

As the defendant designated as the insured is a corporation of Pakistan, the insurance contract of this case is a foreign element.

The governing law should be determined in accordance with the Private International Act. The main sentence of Article 25(1) of the Private International Act provides for the limitation.

(b) The contract is governed by the law chosen explicitly or implicitly by the party, which provides that "...."

The Institute Time Clauses of the United Kingdom applicable to the insurance contract of this case shall apply to the first chapter of the insurance contract "the insurance of this case"

The law and customs of the insurance contract of this case shall be governed by the law and customs of this case, so the interpretation of the insurance contract of this case shall be problematic.

English law is the governing law.

B. A person who is not specified in an insurance contract under English law as the insured is recognized as the insured.

there may be cases. In other words, an agent for whom the power of attorney to conclude an insurance contract was granted by the principal.

The other party did not specify the identity of the principal, but the principal was exposed to the existence of the principal, and the other party deemed the principal.

If the existence of a person is known, the unexploded principal (unamed /ununified professional)

under this insurance contract. In addition, the other party who entered into an insurance contract with a representative may be entitled to rights and obligations under this

In a case where a room does not know the existence of the principal, the agent is not exposed to the principal (Gunisclosed).

A principal at the time of conclusion of an insurance contract with a power of representation concerning the conclusion of an insurance contract granted by a princcal p

to enter into an insurance contract for the purpose of this section and not exposed to the terms of the insurance contract.

not disclosed principal unless there is a prohibition that the principal is a party to the contract.

rights and obligations under this insurance contract (e.g., so-called 'unknown principal' or disclosure;

The other party's legal doctrine is not 'the other party'.

C. The court below held that Hyundai Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Modern Marine Insurance") is the insurer of the instant insurance contract.

(3) The claim for payment of the instant deposit, which was deposited on account of the existence of the obligee’s impossibility, shall appear to have been filed.

The court determined that the Defendant, the owner of the instant vessel, as the insured in securities, belongs to the Defendant.

For the following reasons, the Plaintiff was not indicated in the insurance policy as the insured;

The plaintiff's assertion that he is insured under the insurance contract is rejected.

(1) On July 6, 2013, the instant insurance contract concluded on July 6, 2013 with respect to the instant vessel is the Plaintiff, a bareboat charterer.

In the case of a corporation entrusted with the management of the ship of this case by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "manship").

3) On July 6, 2012, the number of winners of the instant vessel entered into the instant agreement with Hyundai Sea and the instant vessel insurance system.

(1) The insured is the Plaintiff and the manager in the insurance policy of the insurance contract.

Although the insured was named as the "board", the insured, when entering into the instant insurance contract, shall be the owner, defendant, or management.

It was changed to ‘the number of winners', which is not due to mistake or mistake of winners, but due to the plaintiff and the number of winners.

In consultation between the officials in charge, the owner of the column for the insured as such shall be entitled to the

the defendant's insured interest, which is the owner of the ship of this case, has been changed to the defendant

I seem to have been for the purposes of this Act.

(2) At the time of entering into the instant insurance contract, irrespective of the entry of the insurance policy between the hand and the modern sea.

There is no agreement that the plaintiff is the insured.

(3) One of the important factors in calculating the premium rate in a ship insurance contract is the supervisor’s officer.

The risk measuring factors, such as the possibility of accidents, are different depending on who the manager has ability and who is.

Therefore, according to the practice of the ship insurance industry, the manager is inevitably included in the column of the insured of the insurance policy.

(2) If the manager is changed in the middle, the effect of the insurance is suspended under the insurance clauses.

In addition, several vessels they manage at the time of the insurance contract of this case.

As a group of insurances, the effect of reducing insurance premiums was also enjoyed by purchasing insurance.

in light of the above, the number of passengers shall not be the agent of the plaintiff, who is a bareboat charterer, but the manager

The insured of the instant insurance contract appears to have been indicated as the insured of the instant insurance contract, which is in accordance with the instant insurance policy.

The qualification for taking the examination is also consistent with the appearance of "the manager".

(4) In the case of a bareboat charter that the charterer bears the maintenance costs of the vessel, such as vessel premiums, the general

As the instant bareboat charter is also stipulated in the instant bareboat agreement, the Plaintiff may raise an objection.

The insurance contract of this case is for the plaintiff's interest with the burden of insurance premium of the insurance contract of this case

or the plaintiff may not be deemed to be the insured.

D. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the conclusion of the instant insurance contract

At the time, the number of people expressed that they enter into a contract on behalf of someone else for the modern sea.

there is no evidence to deem that the modern sea was aware of such circumstances, and further, the acceptance of such evidence

The plaintiff at the time of signing the contract with the power of representation to conclude the insurance contract of this case

for the purpose of concluding an insurance contract, it is difficult to see that the insurance policy had the intent to conclude it.

Unexploited or exposed under English law by the Plaintiff which is not named as the insured;

The insured cannot be deemed to be the insured of the instant insurance contract in accordance with the “legal doctrine of the principal.”

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below which rejected the plaintiff's assertion is just, and the appeal is dismissed.

As alleged in its reasoning, a judgment is rendered by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of insurance contracts under English law.

There is no error affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Whether the plaintiff's right to claim the settlement of insurance proceeds is recognized

For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court applied BARECON 2001 form “the bareboat charter of this case” to the instant bareboat charter.

Plaintiff’s first preliminary claim seeking the settlement of the instant insurance money on the premise that this provision shall apply mutatis mutandis;

Each of them was done.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination

(1) Absent as alleged in the grounds of appeal, beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules

No error affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the room or misunderstanding the legal principles, etc.

3. Interpretation of the bareboat charter of this case and the scope of the defendant's unjust enrichment return

For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court: (a) the legal nature of the instant bareboat charter expires;

Then, the condition of ownership acquisition is added, but its substance is on the premise that it is a lease of a ship.

As the full amount of insurance money under the insurance contract of this case reverts to the defendant, the defendant must return it to the plaintiff.

The scope of unjust enrichment to be made shall be the ship out of the funds paid by the plaintiff under the bareboat charter of this case.

India is limited to 19, 370, 000 United Nations corresponding to India, and in addition, the Plaintiff shall be limited to charterage for 50 months.

The corresponding amount is that the price or installment sale price before ownership is included even during the money paid.

The plaintiff's assertion that the amount should be returned as unjust enrichment is rejected.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination

2) misunderstanding the legal principles on the interpretation of the disposal document, the interpretation of the governing law, and the rules of evidence, as alleged in the grounds.

No error that affected the judgment shall be adversely affected by the failure or failure of reason, etc.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is decided by all participating Justices.

It is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jung-hwa

Justices Kim Jong-il

Chief Justice Lee Ki-taik