All
| TITLE | Supreme Court Decision 2009Da105383 Decided September 9, 2010[Affirmation of Absence of Debt] [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
| [1] The case holding that in case where a lease company Gap and a lessee Eul who had a contract for ship, etc. entered into a ship insurance contract for a leased ship with ""Owner Gap, Manager Eul"" as the insured to which the Institute Time Clauses (Hull-1/10/83) applies, Eul has an insurable interest as to the insurance contract under the English Marine Insurance Act which is the applicable law of the above insurance contract [2] In case where an entrepreneur enters into a standardized contract by individual negotiation about a specific provision with the other party, whether such specific provision becomes an individual agreement which is not subject to the law regulating a standardized contract, and the elements to prove existence of individual negotiation, and which party bears the burden of proof (=entrepreneur) [3] The case affirming the judgment below holding that in case where a standardized warranty provision for physical inspection in the insurance contract for lease of ship required physical inspection and execution of pursuant recommendation items as warranty item, and an extension of physical inspection deadline was requested by lessee and accepted, the above standardized warranty provision is a standardized contract which is subject to the former Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act, since it was merely an agreement as to the execution deadline for physical inspection, and it can not be seen as an individual negotiation between insurance company and insurance contractor to the effect that the insurance company is immediately exempted to pay insurance proceeds in case of non-execution [4] Whether an insurer has a duty of explaining to insurance contractor as to .... | |
