A. Whether Article 679 of the Commercial Act provides that if the insured transfers the subject matter of the insurance, the right arising from the insurance contract shall be presumed to have been transferred at the same time (affirmative)

B. Whether Article 42(1) of the General Terms and Conditions of Automobile Insurance concerning succession to the rights and obligations of policyholders and the insured following the transfer of an insurance vehicle violates Acts and subordinate statutes and becomes null and void (negative)

C. Whether the transferee constitutes “a person who uses or manages a motor vehicle with the consent of the life-sustaining insured” as stipulated in the above terms and conditions where the transferee of the motor vehicle pays the price to the transferor in full and has actually received the delivery of the motor vehicle after driving the motor vehicle (negative)

A. The purport of Article 679 of the Commercial Act stipulating that the right arising from an insurance contract shall be presumed to have been transferred simultaneously when the insured has transferred the subject matter of the insurance, is presumed to have been transferred simultaneously when the subject matter of the insurance is transferred, and that the party's ordinary intent is presumed to have been transferred together in relation to the transferor of the transferee, and this is affirmed from the socioeconomic point of view, and it shall not be construed to have been null and void as a juristic act contrary to public order and good morals. Thus, the above provision is a voluntary

B. Where the insured transfers an automobile during the insurance period, the rights and duties of the policyholder and the insured arising from the insurance contract shall not be succeeded to the transferee, but if the insured or the transferee agrees to succeed to the rights and duties arising from the insurance contract, by notifying the company in writing and obtains approval from the company, Article 42(1) of the General Automobile Insurance Clause provides that Article 663 of the Commercial Act shall apply to the transferee, if the insured or the transferee violates the prohibition of disadvantageous change to the policyholder, etc. under Article 63 of the Commercial Act, is an unfair clause contrary to the good faith principle under Article 6 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act, or a clause contrary to the good faith principle under Article 6 of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions, which excludes or limits the company's liability

C. Article 22 (1) 3 of the General Terms and Conditions for Automobile Construction Insurance provides that a person who uses or manages an automobile with the permission of the registered insured as the insured. The registered insured referred to in this context refers to the insured who enjoy operating control or operational benefits for the insured automobile. Thus, if the transferee of the vehicle pays the price to the transferor and actually takes over the vehicle while driving the vehicle, the transferor should lose the right to operate or control the vehicle, so the transferee shall not be deemed to fall under “a person who uses or manages the vehicle with the consent of the registered insured” as stipulated in the above terms and conditions.

(b)Article 679(b) of the Commercial Code; Article 663 of the Commercial Code; Articles 6 and 7(c) of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act; Article 719 of the Commercial Code;

(a)B. (c) Supreme Court Decision 91Da1158 delivered on August 9, 1991 (Gong1991, 2314). Supreme Court Decision 91Da44803 delivered on April 10, 1992 (Gong1992, 1545) 92Da3021 delivered on December 22, 1992 (Gong1993, 569) 92Da50690 delivered on January 26, 1993 (Gong193,865)

Plaintiff 1 and nine others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee

Korea Automobile Insurance Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na42793 delivered on January 15, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the facts duly established by the court below, Article 42 (1) of the automobile comprehensive insurance clauses of the defendant company provides that even if the insured transfers an automobile during the insurance period, the rights and obligations arising from the insurance contract shall not be succeeded to the transferee, and the rights and obligations arising from the insurance contract shall be notified in writing to the effect that the insured or transferee shall succeed to the transferee, and if the insured or transferee obtains approval from the company in writing, he shall apply the insurance contract to the transferee. Article 679 of the Commercial Act provides that if the insured transfers the subject matter of the insurance, the rights arising from the insurance contract shall be presumed to have been transferred simultaneously at the time when the subject matter of the insurance is transferred, the rights arising from the insurance contract shall be presumed to have been transferred together in relation to the transferor, and this shall be presumed to be null and void as a juristic act contrary to public order and morality. Therefore, the above provision shall be deemed to be a voluntary provision, therefore, the application of the above provision may be excluded from the application of the provisions to the insured's insurance contract at a different rate or rate equivalent to that of insurance premium increase (see current Article 97).

In addition, according to the facts duly established by the court below, Article 22 (1) 3 of the automobile insurance clause of the defendant company provides that the person who is using or managing an automobile with the permission of the registered insured person shall be deemed to be the insured who enjoy operating control or operational benefits for the insured automobile. Thus, if the non-party 1, the transferee of the vehicle in this case, pays the price to the non-party 2 who is the transferor, and actually takes over the vehicle in this case while driving the vehicle in this case, the non-party 2, the transferor, lost the operating control or operating control of the vehicle in this case, and thus the above non-party 1, the above non-party 2, the transferor, lost the operating control of the vehicle in this case, cannot be deemed to be the person who is using or managing the vehicle with the permission of the registered insured person under the above contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da1158, Jul. 26, 191; 9Da4803, Apr. 10, 1992).

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and it cannot be said that there is an error in the interpretation of the insurance contract due to incomplete deliberation, and therefore the argument is groundless.

Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)