Attorney Kim Dong-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Law Firm immediately Governing Law, Counsel for the defendant

Attorney Kim Jin-hee et al.

1. According to Article 3 of the Special Terms and Conditions of the Automobile Insurance Act and Article 8(1) of the General Terms and Conditions, the term "damage caused by the insured's intentional act" provides that the insurer shall not compensate. However, in light of the situation, before and after the occurrence of the accident caused by the operation of a motor vehicle, the insured was aware of and used for the injury of the victim, but it cannot be viewed that the loss caused by the death, etc. is "damage caused by the insured's intentional act" as stipulated in the above Exemption Clause, and therefore, it is reasonable to view that the above Exemption Clause is not applicable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Da39898, Oct. 26, 2007; 2010Da62628, Nov. 11, 2010). In this case, the determination of the result is not merely based on a serious result, such as death, but also based on the situation between the driver and the victim at the time of the accident.

2. Review of the reasoning of the original judgment and the evidence duly admitted by the original judgment reveals the following facts and circumstances.

A. The Nonparty: (a) completed a meeting that had been operated from the lowest day before the instant accident with the workplace club; and (b) got home to hear the workplace club fee; and (c) driven the instant Ga, which is owned by another club.

B. At around 29:07:57 on December 29, 2013, the Nonparty: (a) told Plaintiff 1 on the apartment road located in ○○ Dong-si, Sungsung-si, and continued to drive a vehicle in order to take advantage of other dynamics; and (b) opened the vehicle in order to remove Plaintiff 1, the Nonparty: (c) opened the vehicle in order to remove Plaintiff 1; and (d) opened the vehicle in order to remove Plaintiff 1, the Nonparty 1, while having been aware of the fact that Plaintiff 1 still she was running the vehicle in front of the apartment road located in ○○ Dong-dong; and (e) took part in the road so that Plaintiff 1 was faced with the head of Plaintiff 1, who was unable to know the number of days of treatment; and (e) suffered from an injury to Plaintiff 1, such as an injury to Plaintiff 1, who was unable to know the number of days of treatment.

C. On the other hand, the Nonparty and the Plaintiff 1 were friendly with their workplace rent, and at the time of the instant accident, the Nonparty seems to have committed the said act with the intent to put Plaintiff 1 and the accident in distress.

라. 소외 인도 사고 후 검찰에서 "소외 1이 정말 장난하려는 줄 알았고, 저도 장난 으로 차 를 움직 인 것 입니다.", "처음 몰던 차다 보니 브레이크를 밟았는데 갑자기 제동이 되었습니다. " , " 제가깜짝 놀라 내려서 봤더니 도로에 코 를 골고 잠들어 있는 것으로 보았습니다. 그래서저는 장난하는 줄로만 알았습니다."라는 취지로 진술하였다.

E. Plaintiff 1 suffered permanent disability at the rate of 44% of the standard labor capacity of daily workers in urban areas due to the malfunction of the flag and the flag of recognition function due to the accident in this case. By the end of the life expectancy, Plaintiff 1 was faced with heavy dependence that requires 8-hour nursing for one adult per day for daily daily living and social activities, such as urine, meals, etc.

In light of the aforementioned circumstances, in light of the difference between the vehicle driver’s intent and the victim’s actual occurrence result, the relationship between the driver of the household and the victim, the situation of the accident, and the situation before and after the accident, etc., it can be deemed that the Nonparty, who driven the vehicle in the household, was aware and used that Plaintiff 1 would have suffered serious injury to a certain degree while falling from the vehicle. However, it cannot be deemed that Plaintiff 1 was aware and acceptable that Plaintiff 1 would have suffered serious injury to the permanent disability and the dependence of the above degree.

Therefore, in light of the above legal principles, Plaintiff 1’s damage cannot be deemed as the damage caused by Nonparty’s intentional intent, and therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the instant case does not apply the exemption clause of the instant automobile insurance.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the damage caused by the above accident is damage caused by the Non-party's intention, and the defendant is exempted from the liability under the automobile insurance contract of this case. The judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the above exemption clause or by misunderstanding the facts in violation of the rules of evidence, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Sang-ok

Lee In-bok and Lee In-chul

Justices Noh Jeong-hee