Article 11 of the General Terms and Conditions of Individual Automobile Insurance, the scope of the Insured

The consent of the registered insured under Article 11 of the General Terms and Conditions for Personal Motor Vehicle Insurance does not necessarily need to be explicitly or individually, and it is possible to implied or comprehensive consent, except in extenuating circumstances, that the consent is the direct consent from the insured, and that the person who has received the consent does not constitute the insured under the same Article.

Article 726-2 of the Commercial Act

Supreme Court Decision 92Da24127 delivered on February 23, 1993

Sung-gu et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Korea Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., Counsel Kim Yong-sik

Busan High Court Decision 93Na5383 delivered on July 21, 1994

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The case is remanded to Busan High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were subject to the above non-party 9's order issued to the non-party 1 and the non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 1 and the defendant's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 1 and 1.

2. However, the consent of the registered insured under Article 11 of the above General Terms and Conditions of Automobile General Insurance does not necessarily need to be explicitly or individually, and it is possible to give implied or comprehensive consent, except in extenuating circumstances, that the consent is the direct consent from the insured, and the person who has obtained the consent again does not constitute the insured under the above provision (see Supreme Court Decision 88Meu26758, Nov. 28, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 92Da24127, Feb. 23, 1993, etc.).

However, according to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the reputation of the non-party 1 who was the deceased's reputation, who was able to use the vehicle of this case with the consent from the non-party 1 who was the registered insured Kim Jong, requested the return of the vehicle of this case to the deceased non-party 1, and the deceased non-party 1 arbitrarily takes it out without returning it, and caused an accident, and the deceased non-party 1 did not obtain the consent from the non-party 1, and it is clear that the non-party 1 did not directly consent. Thus, it cannot be viewed that the registered insured was the time of implied or comprehensive consent on the operation of the vehicle of this case to the registered insured, and even though the registered insured cannot be viewed as the time of the non-party 1's consent, the non-party 1 again consented is the insured as stipulated in Article 11 of the above insurance terms and conditions. The judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the consent of the insured under the above insurance terms and conditions, and by violating the rules of evidence, thereby finding that the deceased non-party

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)