A. Whether the insurer is exempted from liability under Article 42 of the Motor Vehicle Comprehensive Insurance Policy in case where the insured changes the registered name of the motor vehicle insurance, but the insured actually possesses a motor vehicle and directly operates the motor vehicle while controlling its operation (negative)

B. The purport of Article 42 of the Insurance Terms and Conditions (A) excluded from the application of Article 679 of the former Commercial Act (amended by Act No. 4470 of Dec. 31, 1991)

A. The term “in cases where an insurer is exempted from liability for the transfer of an automobile” in Article 42 of the General Automobile Insurance Clause means the condition of operation control and transfer of an automobile which is corporeal movable property, and thus the transferor loses the operation control over the automobile and acquires the de facto operation control by the transferee. Therefore, the above provision shall not apply in cases where the registered insured changes only the registered name, possesses the automobile in fact, and directly operates the automobile while controlling its operation, and causes the loss caused by the death or injury.

B. Article 679 of the Commercial Act prior to the amendment by Act No. 4470 of Dec. 31, 1991 provides that when the insured transfers the subject matter of the insurance, the right arising from the insurance contract shall be deemed to have been transferred simultaneously. Article 42 of the above provision of the insurance contract provides that Article 42 of the above provision of the Commercial Act excludes the application of the above provision of the Commercial Act. In this case, in the automobile insurance contract, there is a frequent occurrence of replacement of the automobile which is the subject matter of the insurance, and in this case, the policyholder needs to use the insurance contract in the form of replacing the automobile in order to receive premium discounts due to accident, etc., and in addition, there is an important interest in the replacement of the insured who is likely to cause a significant change in the foundation of the insurance contract, such as a change in the predicted risk rate

Article 679 of the former Commercial Act (amended by Act No. 4470 of Dec. 31, 1991); Article 679 of the Commercial Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 91Da1158 delivered on August 9, 1991 (Gong1991, 2314) 92Da8552 delivered on April 13, 1993 (Gong193, 1371)

[Judgment of the court below]

National Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and four others

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na23195 delivered on November 18, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The gist of the facts found by the court below is as follows.

A. The Plaintiff entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the policyholder and the insured as to the automobile for business with the insurance period from October 27, 1989 to October 27, 199 with respect to the 4.5 tons of truck owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant automobile”), and operated for business purposes. On December 20, 1989, the Plaintiff owned the instant automobile and used the instant automobile to exclusively transport and receive the price for the goods produced by the non-party company by using the instant automobile owned by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff cannot carry out a commercial transport without a license for the automobile transport business. The Plaintiff’s ownership and the right to control the operation of the instant automobile for the purpose of avoiding the conflict with the Plaintiff, while it was in the form of changing the name of the non-party company into the non-party company’s driver. However, the Plaintiff actually obtained the Plaintiff’s share of the instant automobile with the Defendant’s insurance premium in the form of the exclusive freight charges or the instant automobile, etc., and obtained the Plaintiff’s share of the automobile in the form of the automobile.

B. At around 14:00 on January 27, 1990, the Gu affairs holiday, the Plaintiff driving the instant vehicle with the Nonparty, etc., who was a deadly disabled, and caused the instant traffic accident, resulting in the death of the Nonparty.

C. Article 42(1) of the General Terms and Conditions of Insurance of Business Automobiles, the terms and conditions of which are the contents of the insurance contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, provides that if the insured transfers an insured automobile (including returning an insured automobile in cases where an insurance contract was concluded by a policyholder or a person who borrowed the insured according to a contract of purchase and lending reservation of ownership) during the insurance period, the rights and obligations of the policyholder and the insured arising from this insurance contract shall not be succeeded to the transferee (including any person who borrowed the insured automobile according to the contract of sale and lending and lending and lending and reservation of ownership). However, if the policyholder notifies the company of the fact that the rights and obligations arising from this insurance contract are transferred to the transferee of the insured automobile in writing and requests the company for an endorsement of the insurance policy and then the company approves it, this insurance contract shall apply to the transferee from that time. Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that the company shall not pay the insurance money for any accident that occurred after the insured automobile was transferred to

2. In light of the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is justified and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence.

3. In addition, if the facts are acknowledged by the court below, the comprehensive insurance under Article 1 of the above standardized contract aims to compensate the insured for the loss incurred by the insured in causing death or injury to another person due to the operation of the motor vehicle. In light of Article 42 of the above standardized contract, where the defendant company, the insurer of the motor vehicle, is exempted from liability, the transfer of the motor vehicle in question, refers to the transfer of the motor vehicle in question, and the transferor loses the operation control and the transferee acquires the de facto operation control. Therefore, the above provision shall not apply to the case where the insured in question changes the registered name of the motor vehicle in question and directly operates the motor vehicle while holding the motor vehicle in question and controlling its operation, resulting in the death or injury. The reasoning of the court below's reasoning that it is reasonable to interpret that the above provision shall not apply to the case where the plaintiff, the insurer of the non-party company, and the plaintiff, the insurer of the non-party company, was formally prepared to register the name of ownership to exclusively transport the motor vehicle in question to the non-party company.

4. Article 679 of the Commercial Act prior to the amendment by Act No. 4470 of December 31, 1991 provides that when the insured transfers the subject matter of the insurance, the rights arising from the insurance contract shall be deemed to have been transferred simultaneously. Article 42 of the insurance contract of this case excludes the application of the provisions of the Commercial Act. In this case, in the automobile insurance contract of this case, there are frequent changes in the automobile which is the subject matter of the insurance, and in this case, there is a need to use the insurance contract in the form of replacing the automobile in order to receive premium discounts due to accident, etc., and in addition, there is an important interest in the replacement of the insured who is likely to cause a significant change in the foundation of the insurance contract, such as a change in the predicted risk rate, and there is a need for the insurer to receive an opportunity to maintain or change the relation of the insurance contract (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da1158 of August 9, 191).

5. Therefore, there is no reason to argue in the judgment below that there is a misapprehension of the legal principles as to the violation of the rules of evidence, the interpretation of the insurance terms and conditions, and the insurer exemption.

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 Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)