A. Whether Article 158 of the Insurance Business Act preferentially applies to Article 756 of the Civil Act

(a) Article 158 of the Insurance Business Act, which stipulates that if an employee of an insurer causes damage to a policyholder in the course of soliciting insurance, the insurer’s liability for compensation for such employee shall be applied in preference to Article 756 of the Civil Code, which is a general provision on the employer’s liability for compensation;

B. Even if an insurer is liable for damages in accordance with Article 158 of the Insurance Business Act, if there is negligence on the part of the policyholder, the court should take into account the liability for damages and its amount determined.

(a)Article 158 (a) of the Insurance Business Act; Article 756(b) of the Civil Act; Article 763, Article 396 of the Civil Act;

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Korea Fire & Marine Insurance Corporation, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Gwangju High Court Decision 93Na2529 delivered on March 11, 1994

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (including the grounds of appeal indicated in the supplementary appellate brief).

(1) On the first ground for appeal

The court below acknowledged that the non-party, who was employed as a commissioned member of the defendant company, recommended the plaintiff to purchase a long-term comprehensive household insurance contract of this case which is not an insurance product handled by the defendant company in a false manner, and obtained a premium of KRW 50,000 from the plaintiff on behalf of the non-party, and acquired it by deceit. The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the non-party is liable to represent the non-party as provided in Article 125 or 126 of the Civil Act, because the non-party has legitimate grounds to believe that the contract was lawfully concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant or that the non-party did not have the right to represent the non-party, even if there was a legitimate reason to believe that the contract was formed or the contract was not made or the non-party did not have the right to represent the non-party. In light of the records, the court below's recognition and decision is acceptable, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the establishment of the insurance contract,

(2) On the second ground for appeal

Article 158 of the Insurance Business Act, which provides for the liability of an insurance company to compensate for damages to an employee of the insurance company in the course of soliciting insurance contracts, shall take precedence over Article 756 of the Civil Act, which is a general provision on the liability of the employer. Thus, the court below's erroneous determination of the court below's determination of Article 158 of the Insurance Business Act and Article 756 of the Civil Act, which is a basis for the liability of compensation of the defendant company, is erroneous. However, as long as the court below recognizes the defendant company's liability for damages as stated in its decision, the

On the other hand, even if an insurer is liable for damages under Article 158 of the Insurance Business Act, if there is any negligence on the part of the policyholder, the court shall take such factors into account in determining liability for damages and its amount. Therefore, in calculating the scope of liability for damages of the defendant company, the court below's decision is just in taking into account the plaintiff's negligence as stated in its holding, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 1

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

(3) On the third and fourth grounds

In light of the records, in calculating the scope of the liability for damages of the defendant company, the court below's measure which assessed the ratio of negligence to 30% in consideration of the negligence as stated in the judgment of the plaintiff does not seem to be remarkably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity. In addition, in this case where the plaintiff claims for the payment of damages from the day after the plaintiff received the money by deceit and the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment, the court below is also justified in calculating the amount of damages as stated in its judgment. There is no error of law by erroneous interpretation in calculating the scope of damages

(4) Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)