[1] In a case where the scope of family members stipulated in the "Special Terms and Conditions for Limited Driving for Family Drivers" includes children of the registered insured and persons in a de facto marital relationship with the children of the registered insured, the case holding that the registered insured person's fraudulent act or the person in a legal marital relationship with the children of the registered insured as stipulated in

[2] Whether the “special terms and conditions for limited driving for family drivers” are subject to the obligation to specify and explain (affirmative) / Whether the insurer of the comprehensive automobile insurance contract is obligated to clarify and explain the terms and conditions to the extent that they are not included in the scope of family members as stipulated in the above special terms and conditions (negative in principle)

[1] In a case where the scope of family members stipulated in the special terms and conditions for limited driving of family drivers includes children of the registered insured and those in a de facto marital relationship with the registered insured, the case holding that, in full view of the legal principles on the interpretation of the terms and conditions and the fact that the spouse and children of the registered insured provide that the scope of family members include cases based on a de facto marital relationship, but does not have any provision as to whether the registered insured's fraudulent act or a de facto marital relationship is included in the scope of family members, it means a person who is in a legal marital relationship with the children of the registered insured under the above terms and conditions.

[2] The family driver limited driving special terms and conditions of the automobile insurance generally correspond to the important contents related to the insurer's exemption, and are subject to the insurer's duty to specify and explain specific and detailed terms and conditions. However, barring special circumstances, such as where the insured's child is in de facto marital relationship with his/her child, the insurer cannot be deemed to have a duty to clarify and explain the above terms and conditions until they are not included in the scope of his/her family as the insured's fraud or her rash, unless there are circumstances such as the insured's intent to receive comprehensive insurance as to an accident that occurs in the course of driving a motor vehicle by the insured.

[1] Article 5 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act, Articles 105 and 812 of the Civil Act, Article 726-2 of the Commercial Act / [2] Articles 638-3(1) and 726-2 of the Commercial Act, Article 3 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2008Da68944 Decided January 30, 2009 (Gong2009Sang, 250) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2003Da27054 Decided August 22, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 1926)

Plaintiff (Law Firm citizen, Attorneys Jeon Young-sik et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

The Intervenor joining the Plaintiff

The next Dasch Rexroth Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Han-chul, Attorney Kim Nam-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Na21245 Decided July 26, 2013

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

In light of the characteristics of the general transaction terms and the insurance system, the interpretation of the terms and conditions shall not be based on the intended purpose or intent of each contracting party, but be based on the average customer’s understanding possibility, and shall be interpreted objectively and uniformly in consideration of the interests of the entire insurance organization (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da68944, Jan. 30, 2009, etc.).

In full view of these legal principles and the pertinent special terms and conditions of limited driving for family drivers include the cases based on de facto marital relations between the spouse and the child of the insured and the insured. However, in full view of the fact that there is no provision as to whether the cases based on the fraudulent act or de facto marital relationship of the insured are included in the scope of their family, it should be interpreted that the child of the insured and the person in a legal marital relationship between the insured and the children of the insured who are caused by the fraud or the act

citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below determined that Nonparty 2, who is a registered insured person of the insurance contract of this case, was not included in the family under the instant special terms and conditions for limited driving of the family driver of this case.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the meaning of fraud under the special terms and conditions

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The special terms and conditions of limited driving of the automobile insurance are important matters related to the insurer's exemption, which are generally subject to the insurer's specific and detailed explanation and explanation duty (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da27054 delivered on August 22, 2003, etc.).

However, barring special circumstances, such as expressing the intent to be subject to comprehensive insurance even in cases of accidents that occur while driving a motor vehicle by a person who is expected to be or will be the insured, the insurer cannot be deemed to have a duty to clearly explain and explain the above terms and conditions until they are not included in the scope of his/her family as a person who is in a de facto marital relationship with his/her child by presenting a case of de facto marital relationship with the insured.

In light of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below determined that the Defendant cannot be deemed to have a duty to explain to Nonparty 1, the policyholder, the non-party 1, the insured, the scope of his family under the instant special agreement, to the extent that it does not include a fraudulent act in a de facto marital relationship with the Plaintiff’s

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3

With reference to the reasoning of the first instance judgment, the lower court determined that the marriage between Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 at the time of the accident in this case did not take effect as a legally valid marriage and was not a legal mistake of the Plaintiff’s law, on the ground that: (a) Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2, a Korean citizen at the time of the accident in this case, registered the marriage in the family register register of the Incheon Gyeongsung Association while entering the marriage in Korea; (b) Nonparty 2, a Korean citizen, did not report the marriage to the family register office in accordance with the proviso of Article 36(2) of the Private International Act and Article 812 of the Civil Act and the Act on the Registration, etc. of Family Relationship; and (c) at the time of the accident in this case, the marriage between Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 did not take effect as a legally valid marriage; and (d) Nonparty 2

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles as to the nature of the marriage report and the time when the marriage becomes effective in Korea by the foreigners

4. Conclusion

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

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)