2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 80% is borne by the Defendant, and the remainder is borne by the Plaintiff.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

(a) Facts of recognition;

(1) On September 10, 200, the Nonparty driven a train (vehicle number 1 omitted) bus belonging to the ○○ Provincial Police Agency (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) and caused an accident (vehicle number 2 omitted) to shock (hereinafter “the instant accident”) vehicle (vehicle number 2 omitted) vehicle driving on the front side of the moving direction due to negligence where the Non-Party failed to perform the duty of front-time watch and the duty of safe driving on the road at a point of 161 kilometers located in the Busan Gangseo-gu, Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) to drive on the side of the expressway at a point of Busan Gangseo-gu, Busan Metropolitan City, which is located on the 161 kilometers of the south Sea-do.

(2) At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff completed the situation service of the “Franchising Haak-do Farmers’s Winter Games” that was in front of the indoor sports center of the Yangsan Sports Complex at the time of the instant accident, and was on board the instant vehicle and was in return. In addition, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as the mouth cutting down to the right.

(3) Before the instant accident, the Defendant concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the National Police Agency on the instant vehicle under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act. The term of the said insurance contract from April 29, 2009 to April 29, 2010, includes personal compensation 1 and 2, and the said insurance contract includes personal compensation 1 and 2, and the special terms and conditions of the government automobile are applied to the said insurance contract. The key contents are as follows.

1. (Contents of Compensation) An insurance company (hereinafter referred to as “company”) shall compensate for an official automobile as provided in this Special Terms and Conditions;

approximates

3. (Non-Compensation) / [1] Where a soldier, civilian military employee, police officer, or member of the homeland reserve forces (hereinafter referred to as “police officer, soldier, etc.”) was killed in action, died on duty, or was injured on duty in connection with the performance of duties, such as combat, training, etc., the Company shall not compensate / [10] the General Terms and Conditions / [10] the General Liability Clause II (hereinafter referred to as the “Liability Clause”).

Not more than 10

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including, if any, a serial number), the purport before oral argument

B. Recognition of liability

According to the above facts, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused by the accident in this case caused by the operation of the motor vehicle as the insurer of the motor vehicle of this case, unless there are special circumstances.

C. Whether the exemption clause is applied

(1) The defendant asserts that the accident of this case constitutes a case where the plaintiff, who is a police officer, was injured on duty in relation to the performance of duties, such as combat and training, and thus, the defendant is exempted from liability.

In this regard, the Plaintiff should interpret the exemption clause limited to the performance of duties related to combat and training, and cannot be deemed to include the general performance of duties of police officers, such as the instant accident, and if the exemption clause is applied to the general performance of duties, it shall be deemed to be null and void under the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions as an unreasonably unfavorable provision to the customer.

(2) Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act provides, “The State or a local government shall compensate for any damage inflicted upon a public official or a private person entrusted with public duties (hereinafter referred to as “public official”) by intention or negligence in the course of performing his/her duties, in violation of any Act or subordinate statute, or in the event he/she is liable to compensate for such damage pursuant to the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act,” and the proviso to Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act provides, “However, in cases where a soldier, a civilian military employee, a police official, or a homeland reserve force member was killed in action or on duty in relation to the performance of his/her duties, such as combat, training, etc., he/she or his/her bereaved family member may not file a claim for damages under this Act and the Civil Act, if he/she or his/her bereaved family member may receive compensation, such as disaster compensation, survivors’ pension,

In this regard, Supreme Court Decision 96Da42178 Decided December 20, 1996, "The proviso of Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act is based on Article 29 (2) of the Constitution, and where a person listed in the above provisions of the Act such as military personnel, civilian personnel, etc. has a separate compensation system such as accident compensation, survivor's pension, wounded veterans' pension, etc., he/she absolutely excludes his/her state from the right to claim damages under the State Compensation Act or the Civil Act to prohibit double compensation. However, even if a person listed in the above provisions of the Act such as military personnel or civilian personnel was injured on duty due to combat, training, or other reasons related to the performance of his/her duties, he/she shall be excluded from the application of the proviso of Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act to the Military Pension Act or the Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State Compensation Act even if he/she is unable to receive separate compensation such as disaster compensation, survivor or wounded in the performance of duty.

(3) However, in this case, the defendant's assertion of immunity is not accepted in light of the following points, even if the plaintiff's injury occurred while performing his/her duties under the exemption clause of this case as alleged by the defendant.

① The exemption clause of this case reflects the proviso of Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act. However, the part of the proviso of the same Act stating that “if a person in question or his/her bereaved family is entitled to receive compensation such as disaster compensation, survivors’ pension, wounded veterans’ pension, etc. pursuant to other Acts and subordinate statutes, he/she shall not claim damages under this Act and the Civil Act” is excluded from the exemption clause. Meanwhile, the exemption clause of this case is recognized to have the purport of prohibiting the insurer who is the State or a local government as the insured from claiming damages where the victim of a soldier, etc. can not claim damages pursuant to other Acts and subordinate statutes pursuant to the proviso of Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act

② However, even in cases where the insurer can claim damages against the State or a local government due to the victim’s non-payment of compensation in the course of performing duties by military personnel, etc., if the insurer is exempted from liability pursuant to the provision of this case, the insurer’s exemption remains under the State Compensation Act or the Civil Act, notwithstanding the existence of liability for damages against the victim of the insured insured under automobile insurance, thereby allowing the insured to bear substantial liability for damages. This result goes against the purport of automobile insurance to guarantee the insured’s liability for damages due to an accident of insured automobile.

(3) In light of the above ② The exemption clause in this case is invalid not only because it is unfairly disadvantageous to the customer, the policyholder and the insured, but also because it moves the risk that the insurer, the business operator, should bear, as well as it is invalid, as it is provided for in Articles 6(1) and 6(2)1 and 7 subparag. 2 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act.

④ In light of the above point and the contents of the above Supreme Court Decision 96Da42178, the exemption provision of this case should be interpreted as limited to where the Plaintiff can receive compensation pursuant to the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State. However, in order for the Plaintiff to be a soldier or policeman on duty as prescribed by the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, the exemption provision of this case should be interpreted as applicable only to the case where the Plaintiff was retired and falls under the disability rating under the above Act. However, it is difficult to view that the exemption provision of this case is applicable because it is unclear whether the Plaintiff is not currently retired

2. Scope of liability for damages

The consolation money shall be determined at KRW 25 million in consideration of all the circumstances shown in the pleadings of the instant case, including the details and result of the instant accident, the degree of injury, and the fact that the Plaintiff himself/herself only sought consolation money.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 25 million won and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from March 13, 2012 to February 5, 2015, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff after the date of occurrence of the accident, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim partially accepted.

Judges Jeong Young-soo