Whether the insurer is always exempted from liability even in relation to the named insured on the ground that the insured of relatives or the insured is a driver for an accident occurred while driving without a license (negative)

Article 10(6) of the Personal Automobile General Insurance Clause provides that "no compensation shall be made for any damage caused by an accident that occurs while a driver of an insured motor vehicle drives without a license." This provision is interpreted as applicable only to cases where a without license is made in a situation under which a policyholder or the insured is controlled or managed, that is, where a single accident is made under the explicit or implied approval of the policyholder or the insured, that is, where multiple insured persons are liable for compensation, the application of the above exemption provision as well as the determination of the insurer's liability for damages by each insured person should be made. As such, in cases where the insured compensates the victims caused by a non-licenseless driving of the children living together with the named insured and seeks the insurer to pay insurance money to the insurer, the exemption provision shall be applied to the named insured, and even if that person is a relative under Article 11(2) of the above Clause, the above exemption provision shall not be applied to the named insured person only in cases where the registered driver's license or the insured is made without the explicit or implied approval of the insured.

Article 105 of the Civil Act; Articles 659 and 663 of the Commercial Act; Articles 6 and 7 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act

Supreme Court Decision 87Meu2276 Decided June 14, 198 (Gong1988, 1023) Supreme Court Decision 90Meu23899 Decided December 24, 1991 (Gong1992, 652) Supreme Court Decision 96Da4305 Decided May 14, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 1855)

Plaintiff

International Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Jong-sik, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Daejeon High Court Decision 95Na7206 delivered on January 21, 1997

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on July 27, 1993, the plaintiff paid KRW 1457 as the registered insured on July 27, 1993 between the defendant and the above victims' 20, and the plaintiff paid KRW 50 to the above victims' 1,00,000 as the total amount of the insurance money for the above 1,00,000 won to the above victims' 20,000,000 won for the above 1,000,000 won for the above 10,000,000 won for the above 1,000,000 won for the above 1,50,000 won for the above 1,000,000 won for the above 1,50,000 won for the above 1,000,000 won for the above 1,000,000 won for the above 10,000,000 won for the above 1,0.

Furthermore, the court below held that the above non-party 1 is an infant living together with the plaintiff and was an insured person under Article 11 (2) of the above General Insurance Terms and Conditions, and the non-party 1 was driving without permission, and the non-party 1 caused the accident while driving the above vehicle without permission under the plaintiff's implied approval. Thus, the defendant's argument that the non-party 1 did not have an obligation to compensate for the damage caused by the accident of this case pursuant to Article 10 (1) 6 of the above General Insurance Terms and Conditions. The non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's aforementioned.

B. (1) According to Article 1 of the above Personal Automobile General Insurance Clause, the damage suffered by the insured as a result of the operation of the insured automobile under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, etc. caused by the insured's death or injury caused by the operation of the insured automobile as stipulated in the insurance policy shall be compensated by the defendant. Article 11 of the above Clause provides the concept of the insured as well as the insured's life insured (paragraph (1) and includes multiple insured persons such as relatives who used or manage the insured automobile as well as relatives who live or live together with the named insured (paragraph (2)) and the consent insured (paragraph (3). Thus, the defendant who is the insurer shall compensate for the damage suffered by the insured in case the insured is a person who is liable as an automobile operator under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da48728 delivered on March 14, 1997).

Meanwhile, Article 10(6) of the above Terms and Conditions provides that "no compensation shall be made for any damage caused by an accident caused by a driver of an insured motor vehicle without a license." The above provision is interpreted as applicable only to a situation in which a driver without a license is controlled or managed by the policyholder or the insured (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Meu23899, Dec. 24, 191; 90Meu2389, Dec. 24, 1991). If one accident is multiple insured persons liable for compensation, the application of the above exemption provision should be determined for each insured person as well as for each insured person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Da2276, Jun. 14, 198; 96Da4305, May 14, 196; 200Da14305, Feb. 14, 1996).

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the defendant's non-party 1 should be the case where the non-party 1 drives without the above non-party 1's explicit or implied approval in order to claim the exemption clause for non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's

(2) In addition, if the facts are as determined by the court below, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff, the registered insured, was an explicit or implied approval for the non-party 1's non-exclusive driving. Thus, the court below's rejection of the defendant's non-exclusive driving exemption order is just, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit. The argument is without merit.

2. On the second and third grounds for appeal

If the facts are as determined by the court below, it is just for the court below to determine that the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have completely lost the operation control and operation profit of the automobile of this case at the time of the accident, and it is reasonable to reject all the arguments that the plaintiff did not have any operation control and operation profit as above and that the plaintiff did not explicitly or implicitly approve the operation control and operation profit of the above non-party 1 as well as the above non-party 1's non-exclusive driver's without a license. Therefore, the court below's rejection of all the arguments that the operation control loss and operation control loss and the non-party 1 approved the operation profit, and there is no error

3. 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 Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)