(a) Whether a provision on exemption from self-driving motor vehicle under Article 10 (1) 6 of the General Terms and Conditions of Insurance for Self-driving Motor Vehicles is valid (affirmative with qualification);

B. Whether a vehicle during the suspension period of driver's license constitutes a non-exclusive driver's license under the above exemption provision (affirmative)

C. Whether the binding force of a general insurance contract may be ruled out where the general insurance contract is included in the contents of the contract, if the policyholder was unaware of the content of the non-licensed driving exemption clause (negative)

A. The provision that no compensation shall be made for any damage caused by an accident that occurred while a driver of a motor vehicle under Article 10 (1) 6 of the General Terms and Conditions of Insurance for Self-driving Motor Vehicles drives without any restriction on who is the subject of the driver's license. However, if it is deemed that the above provision shall apply to a case where there is no possibility of control or management by the policyholder or the insured for driving without any license, the above provision shall be deemed null and void in light of the provisions of Article 6 (1) and (2), Article 7 (2), and Article 7 (3) of the Regulation of Terms and Conditions as a provision which lose fairness in violation of the principle of good faith, but it shall be deemed null and void in light of the provisions of Article 6 (1) and (2), Article 7 (2) and 3 of the Regulation of Terms

B. Article 40, Article 109, Item 1(b) of the Road Traffic Act provides that a driver shall be exempted from the insurer's insurance by focusing on the violation of the laws and regulations that the cause of the accident was not a driver's license, but a driver shall also be exempted from the insurer's license without license during the period of suspension of the driver's license, as the term pool attached to the above insurance clause provides that a driver's license shall be restricted to a driver's license without license during the period of suspension of the driving license.

C. In principle, the binding force of a contract cannot be ruled out even if the policyholder did not know of the content of a contract which included a general insurance clause in the terms and conditions of the contract in the conclusion of the contract.

(a)Article 105(a) of the Civil Code; Article 663 of the Commercial Code; Articles 6 and 7(b) of the Regulation of Terms and Conditions Act; Article 40 of the Road Traffic Act;

A. Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Meu23899 Decided December 24, 1991 (Gong1992,652) (Gong1992,652). Supreme Court Decision 88Meu29177 Decided November 14, 1989 (Gong1990,29) (Gong1990,1141) Decided April 24, 1990 (Gong1990,1141) (Gong192,2536) Decided July 28, 1992

[Judgment of the court below]

Hyundai Maritime Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na5395 delivered on July 24, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In a comprehensive automobile insurance contract concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant, the provision that no compensation shall be made for any damage caused by an accident which occurs when a driver of an automobile under Article 10 (1) 6 of the General Automobile Insurance Clause is driving without any restriction, or even in the absence of control or management possibility of a policyholder or insured with respect to such without a license, the above provision shall be deemed null and void in light of each of the provisions of Article 6 (1), (2), Article 7 (2), and 7 (3) of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act as a provision that loses fairness in violation of the principle of trust and good faith, but it shall be deemed null and void within the extent of interpreting the insurer's exemption to the extent that the insurer's exemption is made under the explicit or implied approval of the policyholder or the insured (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Meu2389, Dec. 24, 1991).

In addition, the binding force of a general insurance contract cannot be ruled out even if a policyholder did not know of the content of a non-licensed driving exemption clause in a contract which included a general insurance contract in the terms of the contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu2917, Nov. 14, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 91Da5624, Jul. 28, 192).

According to the records, the court below acknowledged the following facts in light of the evidence, that the plaintiff and the defendant were insured as to the car owned by the plaintiff and the non-party who reported as the owner driver at the time of purchase of the plaintiff's automobile was involved in a comprehensive personal passenger vehicle insurance with the special agreement of the non-party who is the husband of the plaintiff, and caused injuries by negligence that the non-party was negligent in failing to perform his duty of care at the time of transfer of the above insured vehicle and caused injuries to the above vehicle. The terms and conditions of the comprehensive driver vehicle insurance include the exemption clauses without permission and the term-free driver's license without permission as mentioned above. The accident of this case is an owner of the automobile without permission, and the effect of the first class ordinary driver's license was suspended at the time of the accident, and the accident of this case is an accident caused by the non-party's accident during the period of suspension of the driver's license, and therefore, it does not constitute a violation of the rules of evidence or a violation of the rules of evidence as to the non-party driver's exemption provision without permission.

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.