The case holding that if a lessee of a building concludes a fire insurance contract against the building, it can be viewed as a liability insurance contract or a fire insurance contract for its owner.

Where a lessee of a building concludes a fire insurance contract with respect to a building, the case holding that it is valid to view it as a liability insurance contract, or an insurance contract for the owner, to compensate for the liability to be borne by a lessor due to a lessee’s default or tort.

[1] Articles 639, 669, 683, and 719 of the Commercial Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Dongyang Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Han field, Attorneys Kim Dong-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Choi (Attorney Song-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

On February 21, 1999, around 04:26, the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the insurance money pursuant to a general fire insurance contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on May 19, 198 is not nonexistent due to a fire that occurred in the attached building.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or are recognized in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings with respect to Gap evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 3, Gap evidence of subparagraph 6, Gap evidence of subparagraph 7-2 through 38, 48, 50, Gap evidence of subparagraph 9-1 through 3, and Gap evidence of subparagraph 9-1 through 3, 18 through 20, and testimony for the replacement of witnesses, and there is no other counter-proof.

A. On May 19, 1998, the Defendant operated a general restaurant in the name of “point-line” in the building listed in the attached Form (hereinafter “the instant building”). On May 19, 1998, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff concluded an insurance contract with the content that the insurance period from May 19, 198 to May 19, 199, as the instant building and its interior facilities and fixtures (hereinafter “the subject matter of the instant insurance”), the insured amount is KRW 156,00,000 in total, and the amount of the insurance amount is KRW 300,000 in total,00 in total, and KRW 30,000 in total,00,000 in the subject matter of the instant insurance.

B. At the time of the conclusion of the above insurance contract, the defendant, as the defendant's relative, was merely the lessee of the building in this case, and the owner was informed of the fact that he was the non-party-satise. However, the strong exchange, without mentioning the insured, stated both the policyholder's column and the owner's column of the subject matter of the insurance in the insurance subscription form in the name of

C.The main contents of the Plaintiff’s fire insurance general terms, which form the content of the instant insurance contract, are as follows:

(i)The loss resulting from the intention or gross negligence of the policyholder, the insured or their legal representatives shall not be compensated (Article VI:1: non-compensation loss).

(2) When entering into a contract, the policyholder, the insured or their agents must inform the company of the fact that they are aware of the entries in the subscription form for the insurance contract as they are in full (Article 7: the obligation to inform before the contract).

(iii)where the subject matter of the insurance is transferred or the risk increases clearly, the policyholder or the insured shall, without delay, notify the company in writing and obtain confirmation from the insurance policy (Article IX:1, paragraph 1, 2 and 7: obligation to inform after the contract).

(iv)where there has been a fraud in respect of the contract by the policyholder, the insured, or their agents, this contract shall be null and void (Article X, Section 1: null and void of the contract);

(5)If, after the conclusion of a contract provided for in Article 9, the Company has not fulfilled its obligation to inform it, the Company may terminate this contract unless it is known that one month has elapsed since it became aware of that fact or it has not been aware of that fact due to gross negligence of the Company (Article XI:2: Termination of the contract).

D.On February 21, 199, around 04:26, most of the insurance objects of this case were destroyed by fire that was destroyed by unknown cause.

E. After the occurrence of the instant fire, on November 10, 1999, the Plaintiff notified the termination of the insurance contract on the ground that it violates Articles 651 and 652(1) of the Commercial Act and Article 11(2)2 of the Insurance Terms and Conditions, etc., and around that time, the notice of termination reached the Defendant.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. Determination on the assertion that an insurance contract be null and void

(1) Whether an excess insurance is made by fraud

The plaintiff, although the insurance contract was concluded on the premise that the subject matter of the insurance of this case is owned by the defendant, the building of this case is owned by the non-party-satise and the defendant merely is merely the lessee, and because there is no insurable interest to the defendant, the insurance contract of this case constitutes an excess insurance whose insurable value significantly exceeds the insurable value, and such insurance contract was concluded by the defendant due to the defendant's fraud. Thus, the above insurance contract

On the other hand, as seen earlier, the defendant knew that he is not the owner of the building of this case at the time of the conclusion of the above insurance contract, and on the other hand, the lessee of the building of this case may conclude liability insurance to compensate for damages incurred by a lessor due to a default or tort. In light of the process of conclusion of the insurance contract, there is a lot of room to regard the insurance contract of this case as the liability insurance contract of this case in light of the above contents, and even if the insurance contract of the building of this case is not an insurance contract for the defendant, but an insurance contract for the building of this case, which is the owner, is regarded as an insurance contract for the interest of this case (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da14800 delivered on May 30, 1997), the insurance contract of this case for the building of this case is valid as an insurance contract for the other person, and also the insurance contract for the internal facilities and the aggregate of household expenses for the defendant itself

(2) Whether the insurance contract was concluded by fraud

The plaintiff did not notify the plaintiff of the fact that the lease contract was terminated on the ground that the contract was terminated on the ground that the contract was terminated at the time of the conclusion of the contract. However, if the plaintiff knew of the above fact, the defendant did not conclude the contract with the defendant. Therefore, the insurance contract of this case constitutes excess insurance contract caused by fraud, and thus, the insurance contract of this case is null and void pursuant to Article 10 (1) of the insurance clause.

On the other hand, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant had been requested to surrender the building of this case from Lee Jong-do at the time of conclusion of the insurance contract. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit without further examination.

B. Determination as to the allegation on termination of the insurance contract

The plaintiff did not notify the defendant of the false facts as to the ownership of the building of this case at the time of the conclusion of the insurance contract, and did not notify the defendant of the fact that the order of the above building was urged for the reason that the lease contract was terminated from the above accommodation. After the conclusion of the insurance contract, the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff terminated the above insurance contract on the grounds as seen earlier, on January 10, 1999, on the ground that the non-party 98Da32691 filed a lawsuit against the defendant to demand a reimbursement of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent by the date when the provisional execution declaration was rendered in favor of the court ordering the payment of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent by the date when the name of the building and the name of the house in the above building were completed, and did not notify the above plaintiff of the fact despite the significant increase in the risk of the accident, such as the possibility of transfer of the insurance object, by seizing the house in the above building.

First, as to the claim of termination on the ground of the breach of duty of disclosure, as seen earlier, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the instant building was owned by Nonparty 1. On the other hand, there is no evidence to prove that at the time of concluding the insurance contract, the Defendant was requested by Nonparty 2 to clarify the instant building from Nonparty 1. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

Next, as to the claim of termination on the ground of the violation of the duty to notify, it cannot be deemed that the risk of the occurrence of the insurance accident has increased remarkably due to the fact that there is possibility of transfer of the subject matter of the insurance in this case. Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit without examining any further.

C. Determination as to the reason for exemption

The plaintiff asserts that the insurance accident of this case occurred due to the defendant's fire that caused business difficulties, and therefore, Article 659 of the Commercial Act and Article 6 of the Insurance Clause does not have the responsibility to pay the insurance proceeds to the plaintiff pursuant to the insurance contract. However, there is no evidence to prove that the fire of this case occurred due to the defendant's intention or gross negligence, the plaintiff'

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case based on the premise that the insurance contract of this case was invalidated or terminated or exempted is dismissed as there is no ground.

Judges Choi Young-young (Presiding Judge) and Park Jong-jin (Presiding Judge)