Plaintiff (Attorney Park Young-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Heung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Han-chul, Attorney Kim Yong-nam, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

October 25, 2012

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Da5003190 Decided June 1, 2012

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the following order for payment shall be revoked:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 36,00,000 won 6% interest per annum from September 29, 2009 to September 16, 201.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. One-fifth of the total costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. The portion of payment of the amount under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 45,00,000 won with 6% interest per annum from September 17, 2009 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 9,00,000 won with 6% per annum from September 17, 2009 to the delivery date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment, and 36,00,000 won with 6% per annum from September 17, 2009 to September 16, 201.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the part of “the validity of the instant reduction agreement” in Section 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance is written as follows, and the part of Section 7(d) and not more than 9(d) is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the part of “the starting point of counting damages for delay” (hereinafter “the starting point of counting damages for delay”). Thus,

2. Parts to be dried;

B. Validity of the instant reduction agreement

(1) In light of the purport of Article 663, Article 732-2 and Article 739 of the Commercial Act, the purpose of the contract of this case is to protect the beneficiary by allowing the insured to pay the insurance proceeds even if the insured events occur due to gross negligence on the part of the insured, and the contents of the contract of this case are not to pay the insurance proceeds to the driver who has the intention to expand the loss without the safety belt, but to pay the insurance proceeds. However, even if the driver's seat and its seat are to be reduced by 20%, and the latter seat are not to be reduced by 10%, and it is reasonable to deem that the contract of this case is valid in full taking into account the above beneficiary's protection, and the rate of reduction is not also appropriate.

(2) On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserts that, as a provision on the restriction on payment of insurance money, this case’s reduction clause constitutes an important content of the insurance contract, insofar as the Defendant did not perform the duty to specify and explain such content in detail at the time of entering into the instant insurance contract, the said reduction clause cannot be deemed the content of the

However, since an insurer and a person engaged in the conclusion or solicitation of an insurance contract are obligated to specify and explain the important contents of the insurance contract, such as the content of the insurance contract, the insurance premium rate system, and changes in the entries in the insurance subscription form, etc., which are contained in the insurance contract, when the insurer concludes an insurance contract in violation of such insurance contract, they cannot claim the contents of the contract as the content of the insurance contract. However, the recognition of the duty to explain and explain is based on the fact that the insurance contractor is able to avoid unexpected disadvantages because the important matters of the contract are the contents of the contract, which are the general and common terms of the contract, even if they are the matters stipulated in the contract, or that the insurance contractor could have sufficiently predicted without any separate explanation, or that it is merely a certain extent, it cannot be viewed that the insurer has an obligation to explain and explain such matters until the time of signing the insurance contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da7302, Apr. 27, 2004).

(d)the starting point of counting damages for delay;

Furthermore, it is reasonable to consider that the initial date of calculating damages for delay on the insurance money that the plaintiff is entitled to receive, if there is an agreed period for paying the insurance money, within that period, and if there is no agreed period, the insurance money shall be paid within a certain period from the date of being notified of the occurrence of the insurance accident by the policyholder, etc. (10 days from the fixed date after determining the insurance amount without delay after receiving the above notification) and the insurance money shall be paid within a certain period from the date of being notified of the occurrence of the insurance accident (10 days from the fixed date). Unless there are special circumstances, the non-party witness witness witness's testimony and arguments revealed that the above accident occurred to the defendant on September 18, 2009, at least after the date of the occurrence of the accident, and the defendant's insurance policy provides that the payment of the insurance money shall be made within 10 days from the fixed date after receiving a claim for the payment of the insurance money without delay, and the defendant should have notified the above insurance money within 10 days from the fixed date of the accident.

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 36,00,000 won with insurance proceeds and damages for delay calculated by the ratio of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from September 29, 2009 to June 1, 2012, which is the date of the first instance judgment, to the date of full payment, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the part of the judgment of the court of first instance different from this conclusion is unfair, the plaintiff's appeal shall be partially accepted and the defendant shall be revoked, and the payment of the above money shall be ordered against the defendant. The remaining appeal by the plaintiff is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided

Judges Kim Tae-sung (Presiding Judge)