A. The law of Article 659(1) of the Commercial Act that provides for the insurer's exemption from liability, and whether the so-called "unlicensed driving exemption clause" under the General Terms and Conditions for Automobile Comprehensive Insurance can be seen as subject to the above provision (negative)

B. The meaning of the principle of good faith that acts as the content control principle of the terms and conditions in the insurance clauses and the method of interpreting the terms and conditions contrary thereto (=amended interpretation)

C. Whether it is necessary to interpret the aforementioned clause of exemption from non-licensed driving under Paragraph (a) above (affirmative), and the meaning of “if a non-licensed driving took place in a situation where it is controlled or managed by the policyholder or the insured” which can be maintained as an effective provision

A. Article 659(1) of the Commercial Act intends to exclude a person who directly caused an insured accident, i.e., a person who is responsible for the cause of the occurrence of the accident, from the subject of the protection of the insurance. Therefore, the provision of the exemption from liability under the insurance policy provides for the reduction of the liability condition for the cause of the occurrence of the damage in violation of Article 663 of the Commercial Act, but the provision of the exemption from liability for certain conditions, such as the situation of the occurrence of the damage and personal relations, regardless of the cause of the occurrence, cannot be deemed as the subject of Article 659(1) of the Commercial Act. Thus, Article 10(1)6 of the General Terms and Conditions of Motor Vehicle Insurance provides that the so-called without a license exemption clause that "the driver of a motor vehicle shall not compensate for any damage caused by the accident when the accident occurred without a license, not on the ground that the cause of the accident occurred, but on the ground that the accident was under a license without a license, is excluded from the subject of the insurer's compensation.

B. As provided in Articles 6(1) and (2), 7(2) and 7(3) of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act, the principle of trust and good faith serves as the content control principle of a standardized contract refers to the principle of an act to prepare a standardized contract clause to meet the fair and reasonable expectation of legitimate interests of the contracting party, that is, reasonable trust in the transfer of damages to the insurance, and that the standardized contract is subject to a correction and interpretation by the court as it goes beyond the limits of private autonomy. Such a correction and interpretation can only be effective not only in cases where the standardized contract constitutes grounds for invalidation but also in cases where a part of the standardized contract constitutes grounds for invalidation but also in cases where it can continue to exist only in the remaining part only because it does not go against the legitimate interests of the contracting party and reasonable expectations, i.e., reasonable trust in the transfer of damages to the insurance.

C. When interpreting Article 6(1) of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions as being excluded from the subject of insurance without any limitation on the case of a non-licensed driving exemption clause as it is, a motor vehicle owner, like the case of a stolen driving or unauthorized driving, bears liability for damages to the victim, and does not receive the protection of insurance due to the non-licensed driver's possession of a driver without any control. In such a case, it is contrary to the legitimate interest and reasonable expectation of the policyholder, and it is unreasonable to exclude the liability for warranty, which is unreasonably unfavorable to the customer and is against the insurer without considerable reason, and thus, it is the same even if considering the common interest and insurance, etc. of the insurance organization, and the above provision is applied to the case of a non-licensed driving without any control or management possibility of the policyholder or the insured, the above provision is a provision which goes against the principle of trust and good faith and thus, the insurer's non-exclusive driving exemption clause is null and void in light of Article 6(1) and (2), Article 7(2)2 and 3 of the Act.

[Supplementary Opinion to Majority Opinion]

(1) In light of the characteristics of a general trading agreement and an insurance system, the interpretation of an insurance agreement is not based on the intended purpose or intent of each individual contracting party, but on the basis of an average customer’s understanding potential. However, an objective and uniform interpretation should be made by taking into account the interests of the entire insurance organization. However, an individual agreement takes precedence only in cases where the terms and conditions differ from the terms and conditions of an individual agreement incorporated into the contents of the agreement. Furthermore, in light of the process of formation in which the terms and conditions are unilaterally favorable to an enterprise which is the originator and the customer does not properly give the opportunity to negotiate or review the contents of the agreement to the customer, the principle of unclear interpretation that a limited interpretation of the terms and conditions ought to be applied when it is unclear or doubtful in terms

(2) However, in a case where the meaning of a standardized contract is clearly expressed in a clear manner, and there is no room for multiple interpretations, the said method cannot be deemed to be limited. However, in a case where the contents are unfair or unreasonable, all or part of the validity of the standardized contract shall be denied on the ground that it violates the mandatory law, public order or good faith, or the principle of good faith. This constitutes a modification of the standardized contract as a direct content control.

(3) If it is evident that the above non-exclusive license exemption clause in the liability insurance clause has no room to interpret differently from the language, it cannot be interpreted as a means of indirect content control of the terms and conditions. However, as a direct content control on the ground of unfairness or unfairness, the Majority Opinion’s interpretation of the above non-exclusive license exemption clause is justifiable on the basis of the provisions of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions.

(4) The limitation of the prohibition of disadvantageous change that cannot be set forth disadvantageous to the policyholder, etc. when the loss was caused by the policyholder, etc. under Articles 659(1) and 663 of the Commercial Act is applied only to the reasons for the occurrence of the loss, and there is no room for applying the reasons for exemption under the circumstances or conditions when the loss was caused.

(5) The occurrence of a motor vehicle accident, which is the cause of an accident in liability insurance, is not directly related to the driver's intentional or negligent act, as a result of the driver's intentional or negligent act, and therefore, the aforementioned exemption clause does not limit the cause of the accident to driving without a license, but limits the situation of violation of the law that the accident was under driving without a license at the time of the accident to be excluded from the insurer's compensation.

[Separate Opinion]

(1) Articles 651 and 653 of the Commercial Act do not merely stipulate the grounds for termination of an insurance contract, but also stipulate the insurer’s exemption from liability for payment of the insured amount by cancelling the insurance contract even after the occurrence of the insurance accident, on the grounds that the insurer may be exempted from liability after the occurrence of the insurance accident.

(2) Upon entering into an insurance contract, the insurer is obligated to notify the policyholder and the insured at the time of the insurance contract, of the risks that the insurer has taken over without the insurer’s consent, as it finds the risks to the insured interest, and determines whether to measure the opening rate of the insured interest and to take over the risks according to the results thereof, and the risks that the insurer has taken over through this process must be maintained during the insurance period. Thus, it is the purport of Articles 651 and 653 of the Commercial Act to impose on the policyholder and the insured and the beneficiary the duty to maintain the risks that the insurer has taken over during the insurance period without the insurer’s consent.

(3) In the conclusion of an insurance contract aimed at compensating a third party for damages caused by a motor vehicle accident, if the policyholder or the insured, etc., who will drive a motor vehicle, did not notify the insurer of the fact that they did not obtain the driver's license, it constitutes a case where the policyholder or the insured, etc., did not notify the insurer of important matters concerning the situation immediately. In addition, if the driver's license which the insured, etc. obtained during the insurance period was revoked or the driver's license was suspended during the insurance period, and if the driver's license was allowed to drive the motor vehicle without the driver's license, it is reasonable to view that

(4) An insurer who becomes aware of a breach of duty of disclosure by a policyholder, etc., or a failure or gross negligence by the insured, may terminate the insurance contract only for such reason. In such a case, even if the insurance contract was terminated after the occurrence of an insured event, the insurer shall be exempted from the liability to pay the insured amount. However, if it is proved that the policyholder or the insured did not have any influence on the occurrence of a traffic accident, it can be deemed that the Commercial Act provides for the payment of the insured amount according to the insurance contract.

(5) Of the comprehensive automobile insurance, the insurer's exemption clause which provides for the insurer's exemption from liability for driving without license of the insured, etc. is no more effective than the above provisions of the Commercial Act. Thus, the insurer's exemption clause which stipulates that the insurer is exempted from liability for paying the insured amount, including the case of a theft driving or unauthorized driving, is more unfavorable than the provisions of Part IV of the Commercial Act, since the insurer and the insured are placed in a more unfavorable position than the provisions of Part IV of the Commercial Act, it shall be deemed null and void as it is in violation of Article 663 of the Commercial Act.

(a) Articles 659 and 663(b) of the Commercial Act; Articles 2 and 105 of the Civil Act; Articles 6 and 7 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act;

C. Supreme Court Decision 90Meu16143 delivered on December 24, 1991 (Dong-dong), Supreme Court Decision 90Meu16648 delivered on December 24, 1991 (Dong-dong) (Law No. 448 delivered on December 24, 1991)

Yellow-ray

Maritime Insurance Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na15947 delivered on June 29, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

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

1. The facts established by the judgment of the court below are as follows. On July 7, 198, the plaintiff filed an insurance contract with the defendant on the condition of 7:00 to January 24:00 of the same day with the insurance period of 7Da7855, and the plaintiff was liable for damages under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act by causing the death or injury of the plaintiff due to the operation of the above truck to be borne by the defendant on the same day. The plaintiff's insurance premium was paid to the defendant on the same day on the 9th day after the 19th day after the 19th day of the above insurance contract. The 19th day of the above 8th day after the 19th day of the above insurance contract with the defendant's 7th day of the above 8th day after the 19th day of the above insurance contract with the 19th day of the death of the deceased, the 2nd day of the above 19th day of the death of the plaintiff's company.

On the premise of the above facts, the court below rejected the defendant's defense under the presumption that the above provision is invalid even in the case of an accident caused by intention or gross negligence when the driver of a motor vehicle is judged to be due to the progress of the policyholder or the insured, and the opposite interpretation of Article 659 (1) of the Commercial Act that there is no insurer's liability to pay insurance money for the accident caused by intention or gross negligence, and the special agreement between the parties that does not change the disadvantage of the policyholder, the insured, or the beneficiary to the disadvantage of the policyholder, the insured, or the beneficiary. The accident of this case is caused by the non-party's fault which caused the plaintiff's fault and the insured's fault that caused the plaintiff's unauthorized driving without permission, and thus, it cannot be viewed as an accident caused by the plaintiff's intentional or gross negligence.

2. According to the records, Article 10 (1) 6 of the instant General Terms and Conditions of Automobile General Insurance provides that “damage caused by an accident that occurs when a driver of a motor vehicle drives without permission” as one of the damages not compensated by the defendant under the liability insurance clause. If interpreting the aforementioned exemption clause as it is, it cannot be deemed that the damage suffered by the plaintiff due to an accident caused by a non-licensed driver while driving without permission constitutes the aforementioned exemption clause, and thus, the defendant’s liability for compensation is exempted.

However, due to the development of automobile traffic, the use of a motor vehicle is generalized as a means of life and the damage caused by traffic accidents has increased, the protection of the victim has been emphasized. Accordingly, in applying the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, the scope of automobile operators' operating control and operational profit has been widely recognized and the scope of liability of a motor vehicle owner is widely recognized for the case of an illegal driving or a stolen driving, and thus, the scope of liability of a motor vehicle owner is expanding the scope of liability of a motor vehicle owner for the case of an illegal driving or a stolen driving. As such, as the scope of liability of a motor vehicle owner is expanded, the need to meet the economic demand of a motor vehicle owner by the motor vehicle insurance has increased. Nevertheless, as the scope of liability of a motor vehicle owner is expanded, if a motor vehicle without a license operation exemption clause uniformly excludes the motor vehicle without a license from an insurance coverage, the motor vehicle owner, such as the case of an illegal driving or driving, causes the damage to the victim, and thus, the function and utility of the motor vehicle insurance system in order to meet the economic demand of the owner.

The court below seems to have tried to interpret the provisions of Articles 659(1) and 663 of the Commercial Act on the basis of the provisions of Articles 659(1) and 663 of the Commercial Act in order to remove the unfairness of the above exemption clause from license without license. However, since Article 659(1) of the Commercial Act intends to exclude a person who directly caused an accident, that is, a person who is responsible for the cause of the occurrence, from the subject of insurance, a person who is responsible for the cause of the occurrence, from the subject of insurance, is excluded from the subject of insurance protection, it goes against the prohibition of disadvantageous change under Article 663 of the Commercial Act. However, the provision of exemption from license without license under the above liability insurance cannot be deemed to be subject to Article 659(1) of the Commercial Act, regardless of the cause of the occurrence of an accident, and it is difficult to view that it is subject to the application of Article 659(1) of the Commercial Act, since it provides for the exclusion of the insurer from the subject of compensation by taking account of statutory violations.

3. However, Article 6(1) of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions provides that a standardized contract which has lost fairness against the principle of good faith shall be null and void. Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that a clause which is unreasonably unfavorable to a customer, and a clause which infringes on essential rights of a customer under a contract so that the purpose of the contract may not be achieved in light of the circumstances, such as the type of contract transaction, etc., shall be presumed to be unfair. In addition, Article 7(2) and 7(3) of the Act provides that a clause which limits the scope of damages of an enterpriser or transfers to a customer the risks to be borne by an enterpriser without reasonable grounds, and that a clause which limits the scope of damages of an enterpriser or limits the scope of damages to a customer under the warranty liability shall be null

In light of the process of the formation of a contract that unilaterally prepares an insurance clause with an insurer and without sufficient opportunity to review or confirm the specific contents of the terms and conditions, the contractor of the terms and conditions refers to the principle of an act to prepare a contract clause to meet the legitimate interest and reasonable expectation of the contracting party, that is, the reasonable trust in the transfer of the damage to the insurance, and even if the preparation of the general contract clause belongs to the area of private autonomy, it is extremely natural that the contract clause contrary to the principle of private autonomy goes beyond the limits of private autonomy and is subject to a modified interpretation by the court, that is, the content control, and the interpretation of the terms and conditions goes beyond the limits of private autonomy. In addition, such a modification is also possible not only where the entire provisions fall under the grounds for invalidation, but also where the partial provisions constitute grounds for invalidation and can continue to exist only with the remaining parts by extracting the invalid parts.

This case’s non-exclusive license exemption clause is interpreted as excluding all cases of non-exclusive licenseless driving without any restriction, which is an unreasonable result that a motor vehicle owner cannot be protected by the insurance, depending on whether or not he carries a driver without any permission who bears liability for damages against the victim and does not have his control or management. This case’s non-exclusive license exemption clause is contrary to the legitimate interest and reasonable expectation of the policyholder, and is unreasonably unfavorable to the customer and the insurer’s liability for warranty should be excluded without considerable reason, and thus it cannot be said that it is the same even when considering the common interest and insurance, etc. of the insurance organization. Ultimately, where it is deemed that the foregoing exemption clause applies to a case of non-exclusive licenseless driving without any possibility of control or management of the policyholder or the insured, it is deemed as null and void in light of each provision of the Act on Regulation of Terms and Conditions. Therefore, the aforementioned exemption exemption clause is a case where it is readily possible to maintain the insurance policyholder’s or approval without any permission without any permission or any change in the circumstances where it is applied to the insured’s non-exclusive driving without permission or management.

4. In conclusion, Article 10(1)6 of the General Terms and Conditions of Automobile General Insurance does not ask any person who is the subject of a license without permission, but it should be interpreted that the provision providing for exemption is limited to a case where a license without permission is made with the explicit or implied approval of the policyholder, the insured, etc., and such interpretation should be maintained within the scope of the interpretation. Unlike the above opinion, the opinion of the Supreme Court Decision 89Meu28287 Decided June 26, 190 that excluded the amendment of the aforementioned provision from direct control of the contents is to be modified.

Ultimately, the reasoning of the judgment below is unreasonable, but even based on the confirmation itself, it is difficult to view that the non-party who caused the accident of this case and the plaintiff's explicit or implied approval was granted to the non-party who caused the accident of this case. Thus, the original decision of the court below that the plaintiff's damage of this case does not constitute a reason for exemption from liability under Article 10 (1) 6 of the General Terms and Conditions of Automobile Insurance, is just and without merit.

5. 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, except there is a separate opinion by Justice Kim Yong-han as to the time of the explanation of the reasons, and there is a supplementary opinion with respect to the majority opinion by Justice Lee Yong-han

6. Concurrence with the Majority Opinion by Justice Lee Chang-chul as follows.

(1) There are many opinions on the interpretation of the insurance terms and conditions in a methodology, but I would like to supplement opinions on the fact that the majority opinion has employed a method of interpretation, not limited interpretation.

Generally, the interpretation of a juristic act is referred to as an act of clarifying the intent of the party objectively expressed by the act of expression. If the intent of the party is not clearly indicated, the interpretation is made by using the purpose, customs, discretionary law, good faith principle, etc. which the party’s intent is expressed as an interpretation standard. However, in a case where there is no room to interpret differently, the parties’ intent may not be expressed by applying the above supplementary interpretation standard. However, if the specified contents violate social order, other mandatory laws, or good faith principle, the validity may be denied in whole or in part.

If the above intent of the parties is not clearly indicated, if it refers to an indirect content control over a juristic act by the court’s interpretation of its contents in accordance with the supplementary interpretation criteria, it can be said that, in a case where the parties’ intent is clearly indicated, it is direct content control in a case where the parties’ intent is denied the whole or part of its validity on the grounds that the explicit contents are in violation of social order,

Although the interpretation of the insurance clause does not deviate from the above basic concept of interpretation of the legal act, it is necessary to pay attention to the following differences arising from the characteristics of the general trading clause and the insurance system.

First of all, the general terms and conditions of a contract are not legal provisions, but contract forms, and the basis of its binding force is an agreement between the parties to an insurance contract who intend to incorporate the terms and conditions into the content of a contract (see Supreme Court Decisions 84Meu2543, Nov. 26, 1985; 84Meu122, Oct. 14, 1986; 88Meu4645, Mar. 28, 199; and 89Meu24070, Apr. 27, 1990). However, insofar as there was an agreement to incorporate the terms and conditions into the terms and conditions, the agreement to incorporate the terms and conditions is not subject to the entire terms and conditions, and thus, it is a principle of binding even if the parties to an agreement to incorporate the terms and conditions into the terms and conditions are not aware of the contents of individual terms and conditions, but should be understood as a uniform interpretation of the terms and conditions in light of the objective intent or objective interpretation of individual terms and conditions of a contract.

On the other hand, the insurance system forms an insurance organization with a large number of risks in the same kind and forms a joint reserve fund in preparation for risks by raising a certain amount (insurance premium) in advance, and then, it is a collective joint reserve system in which the risk is realized and compensates losses to the members who suffered losses by paying a certain amount (insurance money) from the fund. Even if an accident is contingency, when observing multiple persons on a large number of occasions, the frequency of accidents occurring within a certain period should be measured by measuring the total rate of accidents and the total amount of accidents in preparation for accidents at a certain rate on an average, and maintaining balance with the total amount of insurance money paid by each member for losses by measuring the total amount of premiums to be borne by each member according to their respective risk rates.The composition of an insurance organization as a risk community consists of the contents and scope of risks that an insurer acquires or guarantees on behalf of a member of an insurance organization, i.e., the grounds for payment of insurance money and the limitations on payment obligations, and the following terms and conditions between each insurance company and the following insurance policy.

In light of the above characteristics of the general transaction terms and the insurance system, unlike the general juristic act, the interpretation of the insurance terms and conditions shall be based on the average customer’s understanding potential, not on the basis of the intended purpose or intent of each party to the contract, but on the basis of an objective and uniform interpretation taking into account the interests of the entire insurance organization. However, an individual agreement takes priority only when there exists any content different from the terms and conditions of the individual agreement which is incorporated into the terms and conditions into the contents of the contract. Furthermore, in light of the process of formation in which the terms and conditions are unilaterally prepared in favor of the author company and the customer is not given an opportunity to negotiate or review the contents of the terms and conditions to the customer, the principle of unclear interpretation that the contents of the terms and conditions should

In the end, when the meaning of a standardized contract is not clear or doubtful in light of its language and text, it may be limited or interpreted in accordance with the principle of complementary interpretation standards and unclear fees. However, in a case where the meaning of a standardized contract is clearly expressed in a case where there is no room for multiple interpretations as the meaning of a standardized contract is clearly expressed, it cannot be limited or interpreted in the above way. However, in a case where the contents are unfair or unreasonable, it is inevitable to deny the whole or part of the validity of a standardized contract on the ground that it is in violation of the mandatory law, public order, good morals, or the principle of good faith, and it falls under

In this case, in light of the provisions of the General Insurance Terms and Conditions of Motor Vehicle General Insurance (Article 10(1)6), the term "damage caused by an accident occurred while a driver of a motor vehicle without a license." Thus, the term "motor vehicle driver" merely expresses "motor vehicle driver" only as "motor vehicle driver," and does not put any restrictions on the subject of the motor vehicle driver, and does not require without a license driver's license to be subject to exemption from liability, but does not cause a cause attributable to a policyholder or the insured or cause an accident. Therefore, the language and text of the above provision are very simple so that it is clear that the purport of exempting the insurer from liability in the event of an accident that a driver without a license occurs in the course of driving without a license, regardless of who is the subject of the driver's license, and there is no doubt or doubt.

Unlike the liability insurance clause, the general terms and conditions of automobile accident insurance (Article 21 (1) 3 of the Terms and Conditions) clearly define the subject of automobile accident as the insured by providing that "when the insured suffers an injury while driving without obtaining a license or driving under influence, the insured is clearly identified as the subject of the driver. In addition, in Article 27 (14) of the Automobile Accident Insurance Clause (Article 27 (14) of the Terms and Conditions), "the policyholder, the insured, his legal representative, or his/her employee (including a driver) related to the motor vehicle is incurred when he/she carries out a driving without a license or driving under influence of alcohol", it is more clear compared to the fact that the insurer is specified as the person who listed the subject of the driver without license.

Ultimately, if it is evident that the liability insurance policy clause is not likely to interpret differently from the language, it cannot be interpreted as a means of indirect content control as mentioned above. However, as a direct content control on the ground of unfairness or unfairness, the Majority Opinion’s interpretation of the said non-license exemption clause is justifiable on the ground of the provision of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions.

However, there is a view that there is a reasonable consensus between the parties on the grounds that the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the insurance contract. However, it is clear that the insurer who is the party to the insurance contract did not intend to stipulate the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the insurance contract cannot be interpreted as a legal act in that there is an agreement.

(2) Next, I would like to supplement the Majority Opinion’s view on the relationship with Article 659(1) of the Commercial Act and the aforementioned exemption provision.

The insurer's exemption from liability under the General Rules of the Commercial Act is two cases where the insured event occurred due to intentional or gross negligence of the policyholder or the insured (Article 659(1). - (2) where the death or bodily injury has been an insured event - Article 660) and where the insured event has occurred due to war or other disturbance (Article 660). Meanwhile, considering the exemption from liability for liability insurance under Article 10 of the General Terms and Conditions of the Automobile General Insurance, the insurer's intentional damage (Article 1(1)1), the damage due to an emergency such as war (Article 1(1)1), the damage due to an earthquake such as earthquake, and the damage due to a natural disaster such as nuclear fuel material which is difficult to control (Article 1(2)2 through 4), (3) where the insured has been listed under a special agreement with a third party, damage (Article 659(1)5), damage due to an accident occurred at the time of non-exclusive operation (Article 660).

In light of the above provisions of the Commercial Act and the above terms and conditions, (1) of the above provisions of the Commercial Act can easily be seen as the grounds for exemption, and (2) of the above provisions of Article 659 (1) of the Commercial Act, respectively. Thus, if the damage is caused entirely by the reason attributable to the policyholder, etc., that is, if the occurrence of the damage is caused entirely by the reason attributable to the policyholder, etc., the cause of the damage is difficult to control, and the damage is likely to cause the polarization, and thus, if the scope of the damage exceeds the insurer's reasonable expectation and limitation, the insurer's liability is exceptionally exempted (i.e., (3) of the above provisions of the Commercial Act, it can be seen as the grounds for exemption due to the reason for the occurrence of the damage

On the other hand, (4) through (7) of the above standardized contract shall be excluded from the scope of risk taken over by the insurer on a certain situation or condition regardless of the cause of the loss, so it shall not be deemed as the cause of the loss, but as the cause of the loss shall be deemed as the cause of exemption from liability due to the situation of the loss.

Therefore, the limitation of prohibition of disadvantageous change that cannot be determined disadvantageous to the policyholder, etc., when the loss is caused by the policyholder, etc. under Articles 659(1) and 663 of the Commercial Code shall be applied only to the reasons for the exemption of liability under the above terms and conditions, and there is no room to apply to the cases of (4) through (7) of the reasons for the exemption of liability under the above terms and conditions when the loss is caused.

Of course, whether the reason for the reason for the reason for the occurrence of damages is the reason for the occurrence of damages, or whether the reason for the reason is the reason for the occurrence of damages is the reason for the occurrence of damages should be determined by the actual meaning of the reason for the occurrence of damages. Therefore, even if the standard contractor used the form such as the reason for the occurrence of damages, if the reason for the occurrence of damages is about the reason for the occurrence of damages, it is no longer possible

In this case, (6) without the license among the reasons for exemption of the above standardized contract in question is the reason for exemption from the typical damages.

In other words, the occurrence of an automobile accident, which is the cause of an accident in liability insurance, is not directly related to the driver's intentional or negligent act, and it is not directly related to the driver's license acquisition due to traffic regulations. Therefore, the exemption clause does not limit the cause of the accident to the driver's license without permission, but it limits the situation of violation of the law that the accident was under driving at the time of the accident to exclude the insurer from the subject of compensation.

However, if a non-licensed driver fails to obtain a driver's license with knowledge of driving skills, it may be deemed that there is a cause and indirect causal relationship between the accident and the non-licensed driver's driving is highly probable compared to the driver's license. However, the exemption requirement for non-licensed driving is based not only on the probability of such accident, but also on the violation of laws and regulations prohibiting non-licensed driving. Furthermore, in the case where the driver's driving technology is not actually a license holder or the license which is acquired is revoked or suspended due to the violation of administrative laws and regulations, it cannot be deemed that the non-licensed driver's driving is highly probable compared to the license holder's license holder. Therefore, the issue of license possession is not different from the cause and indirect causal relationship of the accident. In this case, only the violation of laws and regulations prohibiting

In the end, it is clear that the reason for exemption from driving without a license is the main reason for exemption from liability under the law of driving without a license when an accident occurs.

(3) Finally, the separate opinion is briefly mentioned.

The separate opinion argues that, in the broad sense of Articles 651 and 653 of the Commercial Act concerning the insurer's right to terminate the contract, the insurer's exemption is stipulated in the insurer's right to terminate the contract, and since the unauthorized driving is a situation that increases the risk of the occurrence of the insurance accident, it is possible to set the exemption exemption within the scope that does not conflict with the obligation to notify the risk and the requirements for the breach of the duty to maintain the risk as stipulated in each of the above provisions, it is invalid because it is against the prohibition of disadvantageous change under Article 663 of the Commercial Act.

However, if the risk of the occurrence of the insurance accident is referred to in the separate opinion, as stated in the separate opinion, the risk of the insurance accident is referred to as the duty to notify the situation and the duty to maintain the risk, it cannot be viewed as a situation that increases the risk of the occurrence of the insurance accident compared with the license holder because the driver's license is not known if the driver's license was not acquired with the knowledge of driving technology but is revoked or suspended as a violation of administrative regulations.

In addition, the separate opinion argues that the majority opinion considers a non-licensed driving to be excluded from the risk that an insurer takes over, is the same as excluding an accident at the time of a non-licensed driving from the first insurance accident. If the driver's license is revoked in the case of a non-exclusive driving insurance, the insurance contract remains valid but the risk that an insurer takes over is extinguished, and thus the insurer is not liable for compensation.

However, in liability insurance, an insured event refers to the insured's liability to compensate for damages caused by the insured's death or injury of another person due to the operation of a motor vehicle. Since the insurer sets the requirements and scope of compensation to be responsible for such an insured event and the risk taken over by the insurer is the concept including the above insurance accident and the liability for compensation. Therefore, even if the insured is liable for damages to the victim, it is not reasonable to regard this as being excluded from the first insurance accident as being excluded from the scope of the risks taken over by the insurer by excluding the scope of liability for compensation. In addition, if the driver's license is revoked before the occurrence of the accident, it is no longer appropriate to maintain the insurance, and the policyholder can terminate the contract at any time by cancelling the insurance contract (Article 649 of the Commercial Act).

In addition, the separate opinion argues that the insurer is not interested in the economic profit bridge as a merchant, but the unauthorized License Clause is not a point of view that the unauthorized driving can not promote these criminal acts as a violation of the law, and that there is no inevitable reason to consider only the unauthorized driving among many violations of the law as a reason for exemption.

However, it is reasonable to view that the exemption clause of the insurance contract is established only from the perspective of profit-making pursuit. Even if the exemption clause of the insurance contract belongs to the elements of the insurance product, it cannot be denied that it contains the elements of public interest. For example, the exemption clause in a case where the policyholder, etc. directly caused the insurance accident as an artificial accident, in addition to the lack of the contingency of the insurance accident as an artificial accident, it has the reason for setting it, and the good faith and public interest of the insurance contract act as a major element of the insurance contract. The exemption clause of the non-exclusive driving should be deemed to be the main basis of the non-exclusive driving violation of the law, such as non-exclusive driving. In particular, considering the case of a non-exclusive licensee whose license is revoked or suspended, it is clear that the exemption clause does not constitute the probability of the accident caused by the non-exclusive driving technology, but only the violation of the law and regulations, such as non-exclusive driving prohibition.

In addition, even if there are many violations of law more serious than licenceless driving, it is not consistent with the equity to take the driverless driving as exemption from exemption from exemption from exemption from liability, such fact alone does not mean that the court can deny the validity of the insurance policy.

7. The separate opinion by Justice Kim Yong-han is as follows.

Of the general terms and conditions of automobile comprehensive insurance, with respect to the insurance that compensates for the loss sustained by the insured in the course of causing death or injury to another person or causing damage to another person's property, the "damage caused by an accident caused by the driver's without a license" shall be interpreted as the so-called exemption clause (Article 10 (1) 6) which provides that the insurer shall not compensate for the loss, where the exemption clause is stolen by a third party without a driver's license (including the case where the driver's license is suspended) or drives without a license, and where it is deemed that the exemption clause applies to the case of without a driver's license which has no possibility of controlling or managing the policyholder or the insured as the occurrence of an accident, the decision of the court below that the Plaintiff's damage does not fall under the exemption clause of the license without a license, which is justified, and therefore, the decision of the court below that the defendant's appeal shall not be dismissed. However, as to the reasons that lead to such conclusion, the opinion of the majority opinion cannot be clarified as follows.

(1) In Part IV, Chapter 1 of the Commercial Act provides that “When the policyholder or the insured has failed to notify material facts at the time of the insurance contract or has made a false notification, the insurer may cancel the contract within one month from the date of becoming aware of such fact. However, this shall not apply if the insurer knows such fact at the time of the contract or has failed to know such fact by gross negligence,” and provides that “if the risk of accidents occurs considerably due to the policyholder, the insured or the beneficiary’s intentional fault or gross negligence during the insurance period, the insurer may cancel the contract,” and also, in addition, Article 653 of the Commercial Act provides that “if the insurer has terminated the contract under the provisions of Articles 650 through 653 after the occurrence of the insurance accident, the insurer shall not be liable for paying the insurance amount and may not demand the return of the amount of the insurance amount already paid unless it proves that the occurrence of the insurance accident does not affect the insurer’s intentional change or increase of the risk or the insurance accident caused by its gross negligence under Article 65 of the Commercial Act.”

The insurer is obligated to notify the policyholder and the insured at the time of the insurance contract, which is located most well known in the circumstances of the risks associated with the insured interest, and to impose on the policyholder, the insured and the beneficiary the duty to maintain the risk (the duty to maintain the risk) not to change or increase the risks the insurer takes over even during the insurance period without the insurer's consent is the purport of Articles 651 and 653 of the Commercial Act to impose on the policyholder, the insured and the beneficiary the duty to maintain the risk (the duty to maintain the risk) in accordance with Article 653 of the Commercial Act.

However, as in the case of this case, if the policyholder or the insured, etc. who will drive an automobile did not notify the insurer of the fact that they did not obtain the driver's license, it constitutes a case where the insured's license was revoked or the driver's license was suspended during the insurance period, and if the driver's license was allowed to drive an automobile to a person who did not obtain the driver's license, it is reasonable to deem that the insured, etc. increased the risk of the occurrence of the insurance accident caused intentionally or by gross negligence. This is because driving of an automobile without obtaining the driver's license is more likely than driving with the driver's license due to the lack of knowledge of laws and regulations concerning driving technology or road traffic, and it is common to increase the possibility of liability for damages due to the occurrence of the accident.

Therefore, an insurer who becomes aware of the breach of duty of disclosure by a policyholder, etc. or the fact of non-licensed driving due to intentional or gross negligence by the insured, etc. may terminate the insurance contract only for such reasons. In this case, even if the insurance contract was terminated after the occurrence of an insurance accident, the insurer shall be exempted from the liability to pay the insurance amount. However, if the policyholder or the insured proves that the non-licensed driving did not affect the occurrence of a traffic accident, it can be seen as a solution method under the Commercial Act to allow the insured to pay the insurance amount according to the insurance contract. In other words, the insurer shall be exempted from the liability to pay the insurance amount only when there exists a causal relationship between the non-licensed driving and the occurrence of a traffic accident, but the insurer shall bear the burden of proving that there

On the other hand, Article 663 of the Commercial Act provides that "the provisions of this Chapter shall not be changed to any disadvantage of the policyholder, the insured, or the beneficiary by a special contract between the parties." This is because Articles 651, 653, and 655 of the Commercial Act declares that the insurer's liability to pay the insured amount is against the policyholder, the insured, and the beneficiary while on the other hand, the insurer's exemption from liability insurance due to the insurer's without the license of the insured, etc. in the automobile comprehensive insurance like this case, shall be deemed to be null and void since the insurer's exemption from liability insurance due to the insurer's without the license of the insured, etc., is more unfavorable than the provisions of the Commercial Act as mentioned above. Therefore, it shall not be concerned whether the policyholder, etc. violated the duty of disclosure or whether the accident occurred due to the insurer's intentional or gross negligence, and if only based on the fact that the without license of the insured, the exemption clause, which stipulates that the insurer is exempted from liability to pay the insured amount, including the case of illegal driving or without permission, shall be deemed null and void.

(2) The Majority Opinion considers that, when a non-exclusive license without the license was granted under the explicit or implied approval of a policyholder or the insured, the provision on exemption from the license without the license is valid, and thus, the insurer is exempted from liability to pay the insured amount even if the insured proves that there is no causal relationship between the non-exclusive license and the occurrence of the traffic accident. This is because the foregoing provision on exemption from the license without the license does not stipulate the exemption from the liability for damages, but sets the exemption from the liability for damages under the “accident” at the time of the occurrence of damages. However, the Majority Opinion’s view is difficult due to the following reasons

A. The Majority Opinion’s above view is premised on the premise that Article 663 of the Commercial Act does not apply to the determination of the exemption from liability due to a special agreement between the parties for the occurrence of damages.

The reason for the exemption from liability under the "accident" is to be excluded from the scope of the risk taken over by the insurer, and the Commercial Act only stipulates the reason for the exemption from liability under the "reasons for the occurrence of the loss". Thus, the reason for exemption from liability under the "accident" can be freely determined by the declaration of intention of the party, unless it violates good morals and other social order or violates the good faith principle.

However, in examining the contents of the general terms and conditions of automobile accident insurance as a whole, the risk of the insurer taken over by the insurer in the liability insurance among automobile comprehensive insurance (Article 9 of the Terms and Conditions) refers to “damage caused by an accident of a motor vehicle,” and “motor vehicle accident” refers to all accidents caused by the operation of a motor vehicle (see Article 1 of the Terms and Conditions). Therefore, if an accident occurred in the course of driving a motor vehicle without a license, as long as it is caused by the operation of the motor vehicle, it shall be deemed that the accident constitutes an insurance accident, but if it is once the accident occurred in the course of operating the motor vehicle, it shall be deemed that the cause for the insurer’s exemption from liability to compensate for the damage caused by the accident is not an interpretation consistent with the overall terms and conditions. If it is interpreted that the purport of the exemption clause is to exclude the accident that occurred in the course of operating a motor vehicle without a license from the first insurance accident, the insurer shall be deemed to have no choice but to pay the insurance amount as it is, despite the cancellation of the insurance contract.

In addition, the term "unlicensed Driving" refers to the possibility of occurrence of an insurance accident, i.e., increase in the risk, as seen earlier, and the Commercial Act explicitly provides for the insurer's exemption requirements. As such, it is difficult to say that it is necessary to determine the validity of a non-licensed Driving Exemption Clause on the ground of the good customs and other social order or the principle of good faith, which are the general provisions of the Civil Act.

B. The Majority Opinion’s purport of the General Terms and Conditions of Automobile General Insurance that provides for exemption from driving without a license constitutes a serious violation of laws and regulations, and thus, intends to exclude an accident caused by a violation of such laws and regulations from the subject of insurance without asking whether the unlicensed driving is related to the cause of the occurrence of the accident (see Supreme Court Decision 89Meu28287, Jun. 26, 1990). In any sense, the fact that even an accident without a license, which is a lawful act, should be compensated unless there is a causal relationship between the accident and the accident, can be viewed as a promotion of or aiding and abetting a criminal act (see Supreme Court Decision 89Meu32965, Jun. 22, 1990).

However, the General Insurance Terms and Conditions are nothing more than incorporated into the terms and conditions of a contract by agreement between the parties to an insurance contract, but they are not legal norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Meu2543, Nov. 26, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 84Meu122, Oct. 14, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 88Meu4645, Mar. 28, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 88Meu2917, Nov. 14, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 89Meu24070, Apr. 27, 1990; etc.). The insurer, a merchant, has increased the possibility of the occurrence of an insurance accident caused by without a license, has interest in the economic bridge, such as the possibility of the sale of comprehensive insurance products with no license, or from the point of view of such serious violation of a license without license, it is difficult to see that the insurer is exempt from the above two provisions.

In addition, according to the general terms and conditions of automobile comprehensive insurance, with respect to driving without a license, which is one of the significant violations of laws and regulations that can be seen, it is not specified as an exemption from liability for liability insurance (in case of self-compensation insurance that compensates the damage suffered by the insured due to his death and accident of motor vehicle accident and vehicle insurance that compensates the damage caused by motor vehicle, it has a provision on exemption from liability for driving as well). In addition, in light of the fact that there is a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, such as violation of the Road Traffic Act, such as speed limit, signal violation, and vehicle line violation, almost most of the accidents occurred in the comprehensive insurance for motor vehicle, it is accompanied by most of the accidents that occur in the comprehensive insurance for motor vehicle, and there is no need to consider it as an exemption from liability for insurer on the ground that only the exclusive driver license is a violation of laws and regulations. In addition, even though there is no room to regard it as an obvious degree of possibility of criticism compared to other violations of road traffic laws, the effect of the driver license has been revoked after the suspension or even if it is known.

C. The insurance is a system that, after multiple persons having the same kind of risk form an insurance organization and form a joint reserve fund by granting their respective premiums for the purpose of efficiently distributing the risks, the risks are realized and pays the insured amount to the members who suffered losses, thereby compensating for the losses. Thus, the insurance shall be operated in a way that a balance is maintained between the total amount of the premiums collected by the members of the organization on the basis of the opening rate of the occurrence of the accidents measured by the large number of rules, and the total amount of the insured amount paid due to the occurrence of the accidents.

In light of the above characteristics of the insurance system, if an accident that occurred while driving without a license is included in the insurance accident, there is a question as to whether the above insurance, etc., is not a shocking nature, as pointed out by the majority opinion.

However, the difference in the possibility of a traffic accident in the case where a person with a driver's license drives a motor vehicle does not harm the homogeneity between the members of an insurance organization (see Supreme Court Decision 89Meu17591, May 25, 190). In particular, as seen earlier, the Commercial Act provides that an insurer may be exempted from the liability to pay the insurance amount by cancelling an insurance contract unless the occurrence of a traffic accident proves in the insured that it is not affected by a driver's without a license, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the occurrence of an accident occurred when a driver without a license includes an accident in the insurance accident and the insurance, etc. is broken. Rather, if an insurer is exempted from the liability to pay the insurance amount by taking advantage of a non-licensed driving without a license, the possibility of a traffic accident due to such other cause was included in the total insurance premium and factors calculating the insurance amount, and thus, the insurance relationship may be infringed.

Chief Justice Lee Yong-ju (Presiding Justice) (Presiding Justice Lee Jae-ho, Justice Lee Jae-ho, Justice Lee Jae-ho, Justice Lee Jae-ho, Justice Lee Jae-ho, Justice Lee Jae-ho, Justice Lee Jae-ho, Justice Lee Jae-ho, Justice Kim Jong-ho