The purpose of the provisions of the terms and conditions of the fire insurance contract that the insured, etc. under the fire insurance contract lose their right to claim insurance for the loss.

Articles 657(1) and 683 of the Commercial Act, Article 105 of the Civil Act

Dongbu Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na14488 delivered on August 1, 200

Daegu High Court Decision 2005Na7390, 2006Na1443 decided April 25, 2007

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Article 19(2) of the Terms and Conditions of the fire insurance contract of this case provides that "if the policyholder, the insured, or his/her agent interferes with or evades the investigation of damage without any reasonable reason, the insurer shall lose its insurance claim for the damage in question." The purport of the terms and conditions of the contract is that the insurer under the insurance contract needs to know the degree of damage caused by the insurance accident in order to determine the amount of compensation under the insurance contract, etc., but there is a need for the insurer to provide accurate information on the fact that most of them are located in the controlled and managed area of the contractor or the insured (hereinafter referred to as "insured"), so there is a need for the insured to provide accurate information on this. Therefore, the insured to act contrary to the principle of trust and good faith required in the insurance contract relations, such as interfering with or avoiding the investigation of the insurer's damage without reasonable reason so that the insurer cannot confirm the degree of damage caused by the insurance

The court below acknowledged the facts in light of the adopted evidence and found the following facts. The defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter referred to as the "the defendant") submitted materials requested by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant; hereinafter referred to as the "the plaintiff") or the plaintiff to repeatedly submit materials from the time of the fire of this case, and submitted them to the plaintiff (the counter defendant; hereinafter referred to as the "the plaintiff") or the plaintiff, which were not used for cost accounting. The citizen marine fire damage adjustment company requested by the defendant to conduct the damage adjustment and the defendant did not return the documents that the plaintiff requested to return the damage evaluation, and without cost calculation materials, the defendant assessed the damage without cost calculation materials, and the defendant could have owned the materials necessary for calculating the quantity and cost of the inventory assets at the time of the fire of this case. Upon full view of the materials submitted in the lawsuit of this case, the defendant or his representative, who was the insured of the fire insurance contract of this case, interfered with or avoided the investigation of the damage without reasonable grounds, which caused the plaintiff's loss of the damage as the insurer of this case's insurance contract of this case.

Examining the purport of the above terms and conditions and the relevant evidence in accordance with the records, the above recognition and determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no violation of the rules of evidence or any misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of Article 19(2

2. When entering into the instant fire insurance contract, the Plaintiff did not perform its duty to clarify and explain Article 19(2) of the said Terms and Conditions against the Defendant. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion in the grounds of appeal that the Plaintiff cannot claim exemption pursuant to the said terms and conditions cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal as it is a new argument at the time of the first instance, and further, it cannot be deemed that the lower court did not examine this point without examining it.

3. 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 Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)