[채무부존재확인·보험금][공2009상,418]
[1] Whether an accident caused by competition of risk factors inherent in the place during the unloading from a motor vehicle which has parked or stopped constitutes one's own physical accident as stipulated in the motor vehicle insurance contract (affirmative)
[2] The case holding that in a case where a driver who stopped a vehicle and was faced with the head of the ice while holding and leaving a door while driving the vehicle, the accident caused by the accident is deemed to constitute an insurance accident that occurred while the driver owns, uses, and manages the vehicle
[1] The phrase "if the insured has sustained an injury due to an accident of an insured motor vehicle which occurred during the possession, use, or management of the insured motor vehicle" under the Automobile Insurance Contract refers to the case where the insured motor vehicle was placed in his/her possession, use, or management in accordance with the use of the insured motor vehicle, and the use of the motor vehicle in accordance with the usage of the vehicle refers to the use of various devices installed according to the use of the vehicle for the purpose of each device. Even if the motor vehicle is not in the state of driving, it includes the use of various auxiliary devices such as shutting the door at the front and rear stage of driving, even if the motor vehicle is not in the state of driving, it can be deemed that the risk factors inherent in the place where the motor vehicle is parked and stopped competes as one of the causes of an accident arising from the motor vehicle, which may constitute an accident caused by the operation of the motor vehicle, and it may be deemed that the accident occurred during the possession, use, or management of the insured motor vehicle, as an accident under the automobile insurance contract.
[2] The case holding that in case where a driver, who is the insured, stops the vehicle and has sustained bodily injury due to the loss of balance caused by a iceless words while opening a door of the driver's seat while turning on the road and the head of the vehicle while standing the vehicle, it constitutes an insurance accident under the Automobile Insurance Contract, which occurred during the possession, use, and management of the vehicle
[1] Article 726-2 of the Commercial Act / [2] Article 726-2 of the Commercial Act
[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Da595 delivered on August 23, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2500), Supreme Court Decision 98Da22604, 22611 delivered on September 4, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2399), Supreme Court Decision 2000Da46375, 46382 delivered on December 8, 2000 (Gong2001Sang, 266), Supreme Court Decision 2004Da71232 delivered on March 25, 2005 (Gong205Sang, 673)
Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Hong Hong-han et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Defendant 1 (Law Firm P & P, Attorney Kang Jong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Defendant 2 (Law Firm P & P, Attorney Kang-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Gwangju High Court Decision 2007Na4306, 4313 decided July 18, 2008
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).
We examine the grounds of appeal.
"When the insured person has sustained injury due to an accident of an insured motor vehicle which occurred during the possession, use, or management of the insured motor vehicle" under the Automobile Insurance Act means the case where the insured person has suffered injury by driving the motor vehicle in accordance with its usage, while managing it (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da46375, 46382, Dec. 8, 200). The method of using the motor vehicle in accordance with its usage refers to the case where the insured person has used various devices installed according to its structure according to its usage for each purpose, and even if the motor vehicle is not in the state of driving, it includes 208Da4785, Feb. 23, 1994; 208Da59586, Aug. 23, 2094; 2008Da4785, Feb. 196, 207).
According to the facts and records duly established by the court below based on its adopted evidence, the court below determined the insurer, the defendant (Counterclaim defendant; hereinafter "the plaintiff") 2 and the defendant 1 as the insured and the defendant 1 as the insurable automobile, respectively. When the insured were dead or injured due to the accident of the insured automobile occurred during the possession, use, or management of the insured automobile, the automobile insurance contract of this case was concluded on December 19, 2005, and it temporarily stopped the vehicle of this case on the road before the location of the ruling by the defendant 2, before it was located, before the driver's seat, and after the driver's seat stopped the vehicle of this case, the accident of this case was caused by the lack of balance between the driver's seat and the driver's seat with the accident of this case, and the accident of this case was caused by the accident of this case, which was caused by the death of a steep slope in front of the driver's seat and the danger of using the vehicle of this case, which was caused by the accident of this case due to the accident of this case.
In the same purport, the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff is liable to pay insurance money under the insurance contract of this case is justifiable.
The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the insurance accident in the automobile insurance contract for self-physical accidents, the establishment of the insurance accident caused by operation, the occurrence of the insurance accident caused by the low-time accident, or the violation of judicial precedents.
The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are inappropriate to be invoked as they are, contrary to the instant case.
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.
Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)