The case holding that the insurer is exempted from liability under Article 10 (3) 1 of the Motor Vehicle Comprehensive Insurance Clause for the damage incurred by the ship of the above non-party company while the non-party company leased the middle term from the plaintiff, the registered insured of the Motor Vehicle Comprehensive Insurance Contract, and had the middle-term pilot belonging to the plaintiff work.

소외 회사가 자동차종합보험계약의 기명피보험자로서 건설중기 대여업자인 원고와의 사이에 원고 소유의 기중기를 임차하되 소외 회사에서 지시하는 작업내용에 따라 원고 소속의 중기 조종사가 위 기중기의 조종을 담당하기로 하는 내용의 중기임대차계약을 체결하여 위 중기 조종사가 소외 회사 직원의 지시 아래 소외 회사 소유의 선박을 들어 옆으로 옮기는 작업을 하다가 위 기중기가 전복되면서 위 선박이 일부 파손된 경우 , 위 소외 회사는 기명피보험자인 원고의 승낙을 얻어 위 기중기를 사용 또는 관리중인 자로서 자동차종합보험보통약관 제11조 제3호 소정의 “기명피보험자의 승낙을 얻어 자동차를 사용 또는 관리중인 자”에 해당하므로 위 선박이 파손됨으로써 발생한 손해에 대하여는 위 보통약관 제10조 제3항 제1호 소정의 면책조항인 ＂피보험자가 소유, 사용 또는 관리하는 재물에 관한 손해”에 해당되어 보험자의 보험금 지급의무가 없다고 한 사례.

Article 659 of the Commercial Act

A public mid-Term Services Corporation

[Defendant-Appellant] Korea Automobile Insurance Co., Ltd. and three others

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na55396 delivered on July 23, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are also examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below accepted the above 10 tons of the insurer as to the above 50 tons of the vessel owned by the non-party 1 and concluded the automobile comprehensive insurance contract with the plaintiff 20,000 won from May 27, 1989 to November 27 of the above year with respect to the above 1989 vessel's construction accident with the non-party 1's owner of the above 1999 vessel and the non-party 1 had no liability for damages caused to the non-party 1's vessel under the above 1's construction accident with the non-party 3's order for the above 1's construction accident to the non-party 1's owner and the non-party 1's damages to the non-party 1's above 1's vessel under the above 1's construction accident against the non-party 1's insurance company'. The non-party 1's damages caused by the above 1's accident to the non-party 2's life insurance contract.

In comparison with records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation or misunderstanding of facts, or misunderstanding of legal principles.

In addition, the exemption clause under the above terms and conditions constitutes an unfair provision contrary to the good faith principle under Article 6 (1) and (2) 3 of the Regulation of Terms and Conditions, or a provision that limits essential rights pursuant to the contract so that it cannot achieve the purpose of the contract, or a provision that limits the scope of the enterpriser’s compensation or transfers the risks that the enterpriser should bear, without any reasonable reason, to the customer. In addition, the above provision is null and void as it constitutes a provision that misleads the Plaintiff as to the exemption clause at the time of entering into the insurance contract of this case, and thus, the above provision is null and void. In light of the records, it is clearly asserted that the above provision is null and void. However, in light of the records, it is obvious that the plaintiff's assertion that it would be a new argument only when the plaintiff did not dispute at all,

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 Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-ho (Presiding Justice)