Plaintiff (Law Firm extent, Attorneys Kim Byung-jin et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff-Supplementary Intervenor (Law Firm Han River, Attorney Kang Han-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

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

March 11, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part pertaining to participation by the Intervenor shall be borne by the Intervenor, and the remainder shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

At around 18:50 on May 1, 2012, Nonparty 2: (a) while driving a (vehicle number omitted)-in XD car owned by the Plaintiff on the two side of the International Passenger Terminal, Nonparty 3 and 4 were involved in the accident; (b) the Defendant’s liability to pay the insurance proceeds to the Plaintiff based on an individual motor vehicle comprehensive insurance contract concluded on December 12, 201 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on December 12, 2011, was confirmed that the Plaintiff’s liability to pay the insurance proceeds to Nonparty 3, 4, and their families for legal liability.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 12, 201, while the Plaintiff’s wife Nonparty 1 operated (vehicle number omitted, hereinafter the instant car) Aburpted XD car (hereinafter the same), Nonparty 1 entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the Defendant and Nonparty 1 (hereinafter the instant insurance contract) with respect to the instant car, and entered into a family limited driving special agreement (hereinafter the instant special agreement) with the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1. At the time of the conclusion of the contract, Nonparty 1 provided the Defendant’s employees that “the Plaintiff’s two parents are natural, spouse, children, scarf, and scarf, and were able to drive the instant car at the time of the occurrence of the accident, and the Plaintiff’s two parents are not compensated except for liability insurance if the accident occurred while any other person was driving.”

B. Around April 15, 2012, Nonparty 1 was married with Nonparty 2 in the Republic of Korea, who was reported to the ○○ Association on April 25, 2012. Nonparty 1 completed the marriage report in accordance with the Act on the Registration, etc. of Family Relationship around May 2 of the same year.

C. On May 1, 2012, Nonparty 2, while driving the instant passenger vehicle around 18:50, Nonparty 2 met Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 4, who was walking on the two parts of the International Passenger Terminal △△△△△ (hereinafter “instant accident”). Nonparty 3 died of the instant accident, and Nonparty 3’s heir is the Plaintiff’s Intervenor.

D. The Defendant’s special terms and conditions for limited driving for family drivers stipulate the scope of family members as “the parents and adoptive parents, grandparents, and parents of the registered insured; ② the spouse’s parents or adoptive parents; ③ the spouse who is in a de facto marital relationship or spouse who is in a de facto marital relationship; ④ the children born in a de facto marital relationship; ④ the children born in a de facto marital relationship; ⑤ the children; ⑤ the children; ⑤ the children; ⑤ the children; ⑤ the children; ⑤ the children; ⑤ the registered insured; and the

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 (including each number), Eul 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Plaintiff

① Nonparty 2 filed a report on marriage with Nonparty 1 at the time of the accident in this case, and completed the marriage to ○○○○○ Association pursuant to the Marriage Act of Taiwan. Thus, even if Nonparty 2 was actually in a de facto marital relationship with Nonparty 1, the interpretation of the special agreement in this case should be interpreted that the actual act of the registered insured is included in the scope of family members under the special agreement in this case. ③ Even if Nonparty 2 is not included in the scope of family members under the special agreement in this case, the Defendant did not provide a concrete and detailed explanation about the scope of the family driver who can receive compensation, which is an important content of the insurance contract in this case, and thus, it cannot be asserted as the content of the insurance contract in this case. Accordingly, the Defendant bears the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay insurance money based on the accident in this case.

(2) Defendant

① Nonparty 2 is not a legal deceit of the Plaintiff; ② de facto fraud does not include the scope of family members of the instant special agreement; ③ Generally, a person in a de facto marital relationship with his father and wife is not generally considered as a fraudulent act; thus, de facto fraud is not included in the family members of the instant special agreement, which is merely a matter that the policyholder could have sufficiently anticipated without a separate explanation, or a matter prescribed by the law and regulations, and thus,

B. Determination

(1) The validity of the marriage between Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2

According to the proviso of Article 36(2) of the Private International Act, and Article 812(1) and (2) of the Civil Act, a person in Korea and a foreigner shall report the method of marriage in Korea in accordance with the law on the registration, etc. of family relations by a document jointly signed by both parties and two adult witnesses. As seen above, Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2, at the time of the accident in this case, only entered the marriage in the family register register of the ○○○ ○○ ○ ○○ Subdivision Association in Korea, and did not report the marriage to the family register office in accordance with Article 812 of the Civil Act and the Act on the Registration, etc. of Family Relationship, which are the place where the accident in this case occurred. Accordingly, at the time of the accident in this case, the marriage between Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2, as a valid marriage,

(2) Whether a fraud in a de facto marital relationship is included in the family under the instant special agreement

In light of the characteristics of general transaction terms and insurance systems, unlike general legal acts, the interpretation of terms and conditions shall be based on the possibility of average customer interests, not on the basis of the intended purpose or intent of individual contract parties, but on the basis of an objective and uniform interpretation in consideration of the interests of all insurance organizations (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da68944, Jan. 30, 2009).

In light of the above legal principles, the issue of whether Nonparty 2 is a family member under the special agreement of this case, and the special agreement of this case explicitly stipulates that the scope of the family member of the registered insured is based on a de facto marital relationship in the case of spouse, child, etc., but does not stipulate the cases based on a de facto marital relationship in the case of fraud, and the cases based on a de facto marital relationship in the case of fraud. If there are these circumstances, the act of the registered insured under the special agreement should be viewed as referring to the person who is in a de facto marital relationship with the registered insured's father's father and his father, who is the registered insured of the insurance contract of this case, but is living together with the non-party 2, who is in a de facto marital relationship due to the non-party 1's marriage and the report of marriage, is not included in the family member under the special agreement of this case. Therefore, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant cannot be said

(3) Whether the defendant violated his duty to explain

In general, the insurer and the persons engaged in the conclusion or solicitation of insurance contracts are obliged to specify and explain the important contents of the insurance contract, such as the content of the insurance contract, the insurance premium rate system, changes in the entries in the written application for insurance, etc., which are contained in the terms and conditions of the insurance contract, when the insurer concludes the insurance contract in violation of the duty to specify and explain such terms and conditions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da38713, 38720, Oct. 28, 2005). However, it is reasonable to avoid the insurer from being exposed to the important matters of the terms and conditions that the policyholder would suffer unexpected disadvantages due to the terms and conditions of the contract, even if the terms and conditions are defined in the terms and conditions of the contract, and thus, if the policyholder could have sufficiently predicted without any separate explanation, or if such matters are resumed or resumed, it cannot be viewed that there is a duty to explain and explain such matters to the insurer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da484.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged as a whole, namely, ① the provisions on the family of the terms and conditions of this case set forth in Article 779(a) of the Civil Act, and explain the scope of the family, and since the spouse was added in a de facto marital relationship with the registered insured, it seems that ordinary parties in the transaction could have sufficiently anticipated without the insurer’s individual explanation; ② Nonparty 1 concluded the insurance contract of this case at least four months prior to the formation of a de facto marital relationship with Nonparty 2, it is difficult to view that the scope of the registered insured’s family under the instant special agreement affects the conclusion of the insurance contract as to whether the registered insured’s actual fraud is included in the scope of the registered insured’s family under the instant special agreement, it cannot be said that Nonparty 1 is obligated to explain to the Defendant that the scope of the family under the instant special agreement does not include a fraud in a de facto marital relationship with the Plaintiff’s wife.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jong-won