[보험금][공1998.10.1.(67),2413]
The case holding that the judgment below which dismissed the claim for insurance money on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge it without taking measures such as making an explanation as to the status of receiving compensation as a bereaved family member, in the claim for insurance money which only the scope of coverage covered by the worker accident compensation liability insurance is the issue until the closing of argument, and there is an error of law
The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the court below erred in failing to fully review whether the plaintiff was in a position to receive accident compensation as the deceased's bereaved family member, even though the plaintiff was not a bereaved family member because it was not a bereaved family member because the plaintiff's livelihood had not been maintained by the import of the deceased as a result of the evidence submitted at the time of the closing of argument, and thus dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the evidence submitted by the plaintiff cannot be recognized only by the evidence, even though the plaintiff could not be seen as the elements of the bereaved family member who could receive accident compensation between the parties.
Article 126(4) of the Civil Procedure Act
Supreme Court Decision 94Da8761 delivered on June 10, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 193), Supreme Court Decision 94Da17109 delivered on October 21, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 3070) Supreme Court Decision 94Da5950 delivered on April 14, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1853 delivered on November 14, 1995), Supreme Court Decision 95Da25923 Delivered on November 14, 1995 (Gong196Sang, 15) (Gong196Ha, 3468)
Plaintiff (Attorney Park Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
El District Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Cheonghae, Attorneys Seo-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Busan High Court Decision 97Na7257 delivered on April 9, 1998
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for compensation for survivors, funeral expenses, and missing compensation under the Seafarers' Act, as bereaved family members, for the following reasons: (a) based on macroscopic evidence, the non-party 1 entered into an employment accident compensation insurance contract with the defendant, who is the insurer, to compensate for the damage suffered by the crew or their bereaved family members, etc. due to the occupational accident occurred between the non-party 1 and the defendant as to the 3rd mine area, which is the ship owned by the non-party 1; and (b) the non-party 2, who is the plaintiff, was employed by the non-party 1 to board the 3rd mine area where the fishery catches of the ship was in operation in Jeju-do; and (c) the non-party 5-way 1 was missing from the sea on the shore side of Jeju-do, on the ground that there was no evidence to find that the plaintiff had maintained his livelihood or supported his livelihood at the time
However, according to the records, since the first instance court, the defendant has been arguing only as to whether occupational accidents suffered by the above non-party 2 are included in the scope of damages to be compensated in accordance with the terms and conditions of insurance, and the first instance court also acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff is a bereaved family member who has been living with the above non-party 2 as a punishment of the above non-party 2 at the time of entering into the insurance contract of this case, and unlike the 11 crew member who was specified on board the above 33 light light at the time of entering into the insurance contract of this case, as long as the insurance contract of this case was not modified, the above non-party 2 did not become an insured seafarer under the insurance contract of this case, and the defendant did not have an obligation to pay the insurance proceeds due to the death of the above non-party 2. The court below held that the plaintiff did not have an obligation to make an attack and defense again over the same issue, and the plaintiff's application for resumption of pleadings and the preparatory documents submitted after closing the pleadings, and did not present the above preparatory documents.
In light of the above litigation process or the trial process of this case, until the closing of argument in the court below, only the issue was whether the above non-party 2 was included in the seafarers insured in the liability insurance contract of this case, and there was no explicit dispute as to whether the plaintiff maintained his livelihood with the above non-party 2's income. Thus, even if the court below found that the non-party 2 did not have maintained his livelihood with the above non-party 2's income until the closing of argument, it should be based on the trial, and the court below should request the plaintiff to explain and prove the requirements of the bereaved family members who could receive the excessive accident compensation. However, the court below dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the evidence submitted by the plaintiff cannot be recognized only by the evidence of the non-party 2's legal point of view that the parties could not have anticipated at all, and it did not affect the plaintiff's status of receiving the accident compensation as the above non-party 2's bereaved family members (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da196949, Apr. 195.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)