Terms and Conditions of Exemption from Unlicensed Driving in life insurance (negative)

With respect to personal insurance such as life insurance and accident insurance under the Commercial Code, even if the insurer's exemption from liability is limited and the insurer's exemption from liability is required to pay insurance money. However, in light of the fact that personal insurance is a fixed insurance unlike liability insurance, the interpretation of non-license clause in life insurance does not have any reason to be identical to that in life insurance. Unlike the case of a person who does not drive or drive a license, in the case of non-licenseless driving, there may be much possibility of occurrence of an insurance accident, but the individual vehicle on the possibility of occurrence of such accident does not harm the homogeneity between the members in the insurance, but it does not harm the homogeneity of risks in the insurance. Although non-licenseless driving is intentional, its intention is not directly related to non-licenseless driving, and it does not directly cause death or injury, and thus the degree of damage compensation is contrary to the good faith and ethics of the parties in the insurance contract. Thus, it should be evaluated that the accident without license in life insurance falling under personal insurance is evaluated as a whole as a result of an intentional act and it includes negligence (including negligence).

Articles 659(1), 663, 732-2 and 739 of the Commercial Act

Supreme Court Decision 89Meu17591 Decided May 25, 1990 (Gong1990, 1364), Supreme Court Decision 96Da4909 Decided April 26, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1719), Supreme Court Decision 97Da27046 Decided March 27, 1998 (the same purport) (Gong1998Sang, 11855)

Sweak Elevator Co.

Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Han Han-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 96Na51556 delivered on May 22, 1997

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on the evidence adopted in its judgment, concluded a new injury insurance contract with the deceased non-party 1 as the insured between the defendant who is an insurance company and the beneficiary of the insurance accident as the plaintiff, the insured accident suffered bodily injury from a sudden and unexpected accident in the Republic of Korea or in a foreign country during the insurance period, and the insured, as a result, entered into a new injury insurance contract with the insured within 180 days from the date of damage, and there was an exemption clause that the insured shall not compensate for the loss caused by a non-licensed driving of the insured. However, the insured non-party 1 was exempted from the liability for damages caused by the non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's death accident and thus rejected the above exemption clause 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's defense.

2. Article 659(1) of the Commercial Act provides that "if a peril insured against has occurred due to intention or gross negligence of a policyholder, the insured, or the beneficiary, an insurer shall not be liable to pay the insured amount." Article 732-2 of the Life Insurance Act provides that "An insurer shall not be exempted from liability to pay the insured amount even in the event that the peril insured against has occurred due to gross negligence of a policyholder, the insured, or the beneficiary," and Article 739 of the same Act provides that an insurer shall not be exempted from liability to pay the insured amount, by applying mutatis mutandis the accident insurance contract under Article 739 of the same Act. However, in light of the fact that the life insurance and personal insurance such as the life insurance are governed by the insurer's exemption from liability insurance, even if such life insurance is caused by gross negligence, it shall be deemed that the interpretation of the non-licensed insurance contract has no reason to be identical to that of the liability insurance policy. Of course, in the case of non-driving without permission, the extent of the occurrence of an accident without fault or gross negligence by the insurance contract itself cannot be deemed as invalid as well as an act.

In relation to the facts established by the court below, even if the insurance accident in this case occurred while the deceased non-party 1 was in the process of driving without a license, so long as it cannot be deemed that there was an intentional or intentional act, the defendant can not refuse the payment of insurance money under the insurance contract on the ground of the non-licensed driving exemption clause for the insurance accident in this case, which only occurred due to negligence as above. The judgment below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the purport of the Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Meu23899 Decided December 24, 191, which affected the interpretation of the validity of the non-licensed driving exemption clause in the personal insurance contract. The grounds for appeal cannot be accepted.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant who is the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)