The case holding that an insurance agency has the power of representation to accept an application for restoration of insurance contract on behalf of the insurance company.

According to the terms and conditions of insurance, where a policyholder claims the restoration of an insurance contract invalidated due to overdue premium and overdue interest, and where an insurance company set a period for exercising the period of exercise, which is the contract termination campaign, for the insurance contract invalidated due to overdue premium, and issued a computerized subscription form stating all the matters necessary for the restoration subscription to the insurance agency, and where the insurance company actively solicits the contractor to make a restoration without overdue premium, it is reasonable to deem that the above solicitation through the insurance agency of the insurance company is close to the subscription itself to the extent that the other party pays overdue premium in response to the solicitation rather than inducing the subscription, and it is reasonable to deem that the insurance agency has the power to accept the restoration in response to the policyholder's subscription, even if there is no right to represent the insurance agency as to the conclusion of the general insurance contract, as long as the insurance contract has been concluded at least, the insurance agency has the power to accept the restoration in response to the policyholder's subscription.

[1] Articles 638-2 and 650-2 of the Commercial Act

Modernism

Dongyang Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Song Dong-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

1. Ascertainment that each insurance contract exists in the separate sheet concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

In addition, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 3,587,100 won with 25% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are recognized by Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 2-1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, Eul evidence 4-1, 2, and 3, and testimony of witness hate.

A. On September 21, 1998, the Plaintiff entered into each insurance contract listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "each insurance contract of this case") with the Defendant, and paid monthly premiums until November 27, 200 (hereinafter referred to as "each insurance contract of this case") but failed to pay premiums on December 200 and January 1, 2001, each insurance contract of this case lost its effect as of February 1, 2001 according to the effective clause of the contract. Each of the terms and conditions of the insurance contract of this case provide that if the contract of this case becomes null and void due to the unpaid premium of each insurance premium of this case, the policyholder may claim the restoration of the contract by paying the insurance premium corresponding to the period of invalidation and interest in arrears within two years from the date of its invalidity.

B. On February 15, 2001, the Defendant urged the Plaintiff to actively restore the insurance invalidated by setting the period of the event at which the insurance campaign was held. From May 1997, 200, he received an electronic active subscription form stating all the matters necessary for the restoration of subscription, such as insurance contract and overdue premium, from the difference of the Defendant’s Dong Daejeon Daejeon Daejeon Daejeon Daejeon Daejeon Daejeon Daejeon Daejeon Daejeon Daejeon Daejeon Daejeon Daejeon agency, and received 358,710 won [358,710 won [30,600 + 60,570 won + 29,570 won], the total overdue premium of each of the insurance premiums of this case from the Plaintiff [358,710 won] to the Plaintiff, and the insurance contract of this case was restored by issuing the insurance premium receipt under the name of the Defendant to the Plaintiff.

C. On February 19, 2001, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that he would refuse to accept the restoration contract of each of the instant insurance contracts on the ground that the Plaintiff’s occurrence risk is high, and refused to receive the subsequent insurance premium.

2. The allegations by the parties and the determination thereof

(a) Points in dispute;

The plaintiff asserts that each of the insurance contracts of this case was invalid since he consented to the plaintiff's restoration offer, which is the defendant's agent, and the defendant argues that since the plaintiff refused to accept the restoration offer, each of the insurance contracts of this case is in the state where each of the insurance contracts of this case is invalidated. Thus, the issue in this case is whether the plaintiff's right of representation can be accepted on behalf of the defendant against the defendant's insurance agency, as to the plaintiff's subscription to restoration subscription.

(b) Markets:

According to the above facts, where an insurance contract is invalidated, the policyholder pays premiums and overdue interest during the pertinent period and claims the insurer to reinstate the insurance contract. In this case, the defendant set a period for exercising the right to withdrawal of the insurance contract on February 2, 2001 and issued the defendant's electronic subscription form stating all the matters necessary for the restoration order to the insurance agency, which is the insurance agency, actively solicits the plaintiff to make payment of overdue premium without overdue interest. The plaintiff paid insurance premium for a long time after each insurance contract of this case, and paid it temporarily within 15 days from the effective date of the contract, and the insurer cannot be viewed as not requiring the insurer to directly solicit the termination order of the insurance contract of this case because the contract of this case cannot be viewed as having consented to the above cancellation order of the contract of this case because it was a contract to recover the previous insurance contract of this case without any choice of new risks. In particular, in light of the fact that the defendant's subscription cannot be viewed as having consented to the cancellation order of the contract of this case to the extent that it cannot be seen as having been invalidated by the contract of this case's.

Therefore, each insurance contract of this case was legally restored by the Plaintiff’s acceptance of the above-mentioned over-mentioned subscription according to the Plaintiff’s restoration order. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, each of the instant insurance contracts concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant shall continue to be effective by the above restoration contract, and as long as the Defendant contests each of the instant insurance contracts on the ground that they became null and void, the Plaintiff may have a benefit to seek confirmation. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim shall be accepted.

Justices Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)