In case where an insurance company fails to explain in detail the details of the terms and conditions of the insurance contract on the procedures for succession to a person who intends to succeed to an insurance contract, whether or not it may claim the contents of such terms

Even if an insurance company’s comprehensive automobile insurance clause provides that a policyholder shall notify the transfer in writing to the insurance company with respect to the succession procedure of the insurance contract, and the insurance company shall make an endorsement of the approval on the insurance policy, the insurance company may not claim that the content of such standardized contract be asserted as a content of the insurance contract unless the insurance company clearly states in detail to the person who intends to succeed

Article 638-3 of the Commercial Act; Article 156 (1) of the Insurance Business Act; Article 3 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Dong-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and three others

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

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na30664 delivered on February 16, 1994

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the non-party 2, who acquired the rights and duties of the automobile comprehensive insurance contract of this case as stated in the judgment of the court below with the non-party 1, purchased the automobile from the non-party 1 based on macroscopic evidence, and found that the non-party 1, who acquired the rights and duties of the automobile comprehensive insurance contract of this case with the defendant, did not change the registered name of the automobile, would pay the second installment premium in the name of the non-party 1, and later change the registered name of the insurance after changing the registered name of the automobile, and then accepted it by receiving the above installment premium from the non-party 2 without any explanation about the contents of the insurance contract concerning the procedure for succession of the insurance contract. In light of the records, such fact-finding of the court below is just and there is no violation of law of fact-finding contrary to the rules of experience and logic, such as the theory of lawsuit, and it cannot be said that it

In addition, if the facts are as determined by the court below, even though Article 42 of the defendant's automobile comprehensive insurance terms and conditions provide that the insurance company shall make a written notification of transfer to the defendant and that the insurance company shall endorsement the approval on the insurance policy, if the insurance company fails to clearly explain the terms and conditions to the person who intends to succeed to the insurance contract in detail (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da31883 delivered on March 10, 192), it cannot be asserted as the content of the insurance contract (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da3183 delivered on March 10, 192). For the same purport, the court below's decision that held that the insurance contract concluded between the above vehicle transferor and the defendant were succeeded to the non-party 2 who is the transferee and that the actual policyholder and the insured under the above insurance contract were changed to the above non-party 2 is correct, and there is no error

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)