Where an insurance agency or non-insurance sales board explains to a policyholder any terms different from the ordinary insurance terms and conditions, the binding force of such terms and conditions.

In light of the fact that the ordinary insurance terms and conditions are binding on the contractual parties, not because they themselves are the terms and conditions having the legal or legal nature, but because the parties agreed to include in the terms and conditions, the binding force of the terms and conditions should not be ruled out even if the contractual parties are unaware of the contents of the terms and conditions, but it should not be excluded if the contractual parties expressly agree differently from the contents of the terms and conditions. Therefore, if an insurance agency representing the insurance company or external insurance sales company explains the terms and conditions that are different from the terms and conditions of ordinary insurance to the contractual parties and the contract was concluded accordingly, the contents explained at that time become the contents of the insurance contract and the application of the terms

Article 638 of the Commercial Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Meu2543 Delivered on November 26, 1985

Plaintiff

Dongyang Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant and 1 other

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 88Na15347 delivered on September 21, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

In general, the binding effect of a general insurance contract on a contracting party is not due to the fact that the contract itself is a legal or legal norm, but because the contracting party agrees to include the general insurance contract in the contract. However, in a case where an insurance contract which includes the general insurance contract between the parties in the contract is made, the binding force of the contract cannot be ruled out even if the contracting party is unaware of the contents of the contract. However, in a case where the contract is explicitly agreed differently between the parties, the binding force of the contract should not be ruled out (see Supreme Court Decision 84Meu2543, Nov. 26, 1985). According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the general automobile insurance contract is a kind of the so-called general insurance contract, which is applied only if the contracting party explicitly or implicitly agrees to the contents of the contract, and thus, the insurance agency representing the defendant company or the non-insurance sales company explains the insurance contract to the plaintiff as a content different from the general insurance contract of the defendant company, and thus, the contents of the contract are excluded from its application.

This paper argues that the part of the judgment of the court below that the non-party 1, an insurance agency of the defendant company, concluded the insurance contract of this case on behalf of the defendant company, is erroneous, but this is not a ground for appeal under Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act, and therefore is without merit.

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 Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jae-won (Presiding Justice)